MATTER OF PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.M.C. (TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court considered whether a parent may voluntarily terminate his own parental rights, and affirmed the denial of the father's petition. Termination is an 'exercise of awesome power'; although the court must find at least one parental-fault factor, it must give primary consideration to the child's best interest, and there must be clear and convincing evidence, with the decision upheld on substantial evidence. Matter of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 795, 801, 8 P.3d 126, 129, 133 (2000); NRS 128.105; 118 Nev. at 566-67, 52 P.3d at 936-37. The court held Brian's proffered factors satisfied neither the parental-fault nor the best-interest prong of NRS 128.105. Although Brian expressed an intent to abandon the child, his enumerated 'factors' served only his personal financial interest - a consideration not among the best-interest factors of NRS 128.105(2). 118 Nev. at 567, 52 P.3d at 937. Termination is aimed at protecting children's welfare and may not be used to reward a parent by shielding him from his support obligation; it would be a rare circumstance in which termination would enhance rather than deteriorate the parent-child relationship. Parental rights and obligations are inseparable (NRS 128.015(1); State ex rel. Welfare Div. v. Vine, 99 Nev. 278, 283, 662 P.2d 295, 298 (1983)), and an order terminating parental rights absolves all obligations, including child support. Surveying persuasive authority (C.J.H. v. A.K.G. (Tenn.); Interest of D.W.K. (Iowa)), the court held that a parent cannot voluntarily terminate his parental rights and obligations unless termination is in the child's best interest, and that even if parental fault is established, the child's best interest must be served for termination to be appropriate. 118 Nev. at 568-69, 52 P.3d at 937-38. Because Brian's contention that the child would be better off without him was unpersuasive, the court affirmed. It also held Brian waived his claim that he was improperly precluded from examining Leah, since counsel did not object at the hearing. Allum v. Valley Bank of Nevada, 114 Nev. 1313, 1324, 970 P.2d 1062, 1069 (1998).

In plain language

This case is unusual because it was the father, Brian, who asked the court to terminate his own parental rights. Brian never wanted children, and he and the child's mother, Leah, were surprised when Leah became pregnant with T.M.C. The child was raised by Leah's sister and then Leah's mother. After the state's child support program established Brian's paternity through a blood test, Brian filed a petition to terminate his own parental rights - which would also end his obligation to pay child support. Both the state and Leah opposed the petition. Leah testified the child could benefit from a relationship with Brian, and the state pointed out that terminating Brian's rights would leave the child on public assistance and lose a source of support. The district court denied Brian's petition, both on public policy grounds and because termination was not in the child's best interest. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. It held that a parent cannot voluntarily terminate his own parental rights and obligations unless termination is in the child's best interest. Even if a parent's conduct satisfies the 'parental fault' grounds for termination (Brian had expressed an intent to abandon the child), the child's best interest must still be served for termination to be appropriate. The court reasoned that termination of parental rights is meant to protect children, not to reward a parent by relieving him of his support obligation. Parental rights and obligations are inseparable, and it would be a rare case where cutting off support would help, rather than hurt, the parent-child relationship. Because Brian's arguments served only his own financial interest and did not show termination was in the child's best interest, the court affirmed the denial. It also held Brian waived his complaint that he was not allowed to question Leah, because his counsel never objected at the hearing.