IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO M.A.B. AND M.B.

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied Nevada's two-prong termination framework under NRS 128.105(1) and In re Termination of Parental Rts. as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000): clear and convincing evidence of (1) at least one ground of parental fault, and (2) that termination serves the children's best interest. Legal questions are reviewed de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence under In re Parental Rts. as to A.L., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014); substantial evidence is that which "a reasonable person may accept as adequate" to support a conclusion, Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). The court will "not reweigh the evidence on appeal or substitute our judgment for the district court's." Matter of T.M.R., 137 Nev. 262, 267, 487 P.3d 783, 789 (2021). On parental fault, the court affirmed the failure-of-parental-adjustment ground under NRS 128.105(1)(b)(4) and NRS 128.0126, citing Unique's substantial non-completion of her case plan over 18 months and invoking NRS 128.109(1)(b) (failure to complete a case plan within six months may evidence failure to adjust). The court relied on In re Parental Rts. as to K.D.L., 118 Nev. 737, 747-48, 58 P.3d 181, 187-88 (2002), and Matter of S.L., 134 Nev. 490, 497, 422 P.3d 1253, 1259 (2018), for the proposition that lack of acknowledgment of needed behavioral change supports a failure-of-adjustment finding. The court also affirmed token-efforts fault under NRS 128.105(1)(b)(6), applying the NRS 128.109(1)(a) presumption (child residing outside the parent's care for more than 14 of 20 consecutive months) and finding the presumption unrebutted. The court cited In re N.J., 125 Nev. 835, 846, 221 P.3d 1255, 1263 (2009), comparing facts of inadequately addressed substance and domestic violence issues and disengagement during visitation. The court noted that only one ground of parental fault is required under NRS 128.105(1)(b) and declined to address the remaining grounds. On best interest, the court applied the NRS 128.109(2) presumption (likewise triggered by the 14-of-20-months placement) and found it unrebutted. It considered the NRS 128.107 factors, including the unlikelihood that additional services would lead to reunification within a predictable period, NRS 128.107(4), and the NRS 128.108 considerations regarding foster placement with an adoption goal, noting both children's special needs, integration with the foster family, and the foster parent's commitment to adopt. The court dispatched the procedural arguments. The opportunity-to-defend claim failed on the record: Unique attended calendar call, knew the trial date, and did not appear despite the district court's facilitation efforts. The judicial-bias claim was waived for failure to move for disqualification under NRS 1.235, citing Brown v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 105 Nev. 409, 412, 777 P.2d 361, 363 (1989).

In plain language

This is an appeal by a mother, identified as Unique B., from a Clark County family court ruling that ended her legal status as parent to her two children. In Nevada, before a court can terminate a parent's rights, it must find by "clear and convincing evidence" - a high standard of proof - both that the parent is at fault in some way the law recognizes, and that ending the parental relationship is in the children's best interest. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the family court's record and concluded the evidence was sufficient on both fronts. The children had been out of Unique's care for 18 straight months. During that time, the court found, she had not made the changes required by her case plan - the written set of steps a parent must complete to get children back. Although addressing substance use, domestic violence, and mental health were central to her plan, the court noted she denied using drugs despite multiple positive tests, refused to give a urine sample needed for a mental health assessment, downplayed domestic violence in her relationship with the children's father, did not finish the required domestic violence classes, and was inconsistent with therapy to the point of being discharged multiple times. Nevada law lets a court presume that a parent has made only "token efforts" when a child has lived outside the parent's home for more than 14 of the past 20 months. The same time period also triggers a presumption that termination is in the child's best interest. Both presumptions applied here, and the Supreme Court agreed that Unique had not rebutted them. The record indicated she did not visit the children consistently, and when she did visit, she did not engage with them. The children, both of whom have special needs, are reportedly thriving with a foster parent who wants to adopt them. The court rejected Unique's other arguments. It found she had an opportunity to defend herself at trial but did not appear, even though she knew the trial date and the court tried to facilitate her appearance. Her claim that the judge was biased was deemed waived because she did not file a motion to disqualify the judge in the lower court. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the termination.