In Re: Parental Rights As To G.J.M., F.M. ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL No. 83928
RIGHTS AS TO G.J.M. AND F.M.,
MINORS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE.
MARYANN B.N.,
LE Lt
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT
OF FAMILY SERVICES; G.J.M.; AND
F.M.,
Res i ondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order terminating
appellant's parental rights as to two of her children. Eighth Judicial
District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Margaret E. Pickard,
Judge.'
Appellant Maryann B.N. is the natural mother of five minor
children.2 The two children that are the subject of this appeal, G.J.M. and
F.M., came into the custody of respondent State of Nevada Departnaent of
Family Services (the Department) in 2016 when their younger sibling tested
positive for methamphetamine at birth. At that time, the Department
presented substantial evidence that Maryann had neglected the children by
1 Having considered the pro se brief filed by appellant, we conclude
that a response is not necessary, NRAP 46A(c), and that oral argument is
not warranted, NRAP 34(1)(3). This appeal therefore has been decided
based on the pro se brief and the record. NRAP 34(1)(3).
2 The parental rights of the children's fathers and Maryann's parental
rights as to her other children are not at issue in this appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 7-Z - z gc17
routinely leaving them in the care of others to provide for their basic needs.
After 18 months, during which the children were placed with fictive kin
(A.M.), the district court ordered the children be returned to Maryann's
care. Even though they were returned to her care, the children still
primarily lived with A.M., though they occasionally resided with Maryann
for short periods of time.3 In February 2020, the children came into the
Department's custody again after Maryann reportedly hit one of the
children in the face and, a few days later, failed to pick the children up from
school. The Department placed the children with A.M. again and created a
case plan to help Maryann address her mental health, domestic violence,
and substance abuse issues. After approximately a year and a half, the
Department petitioned to terminate Maryann's parental rights, which the
district court granted, finding multiple grounds of parental fault and that
termination was in the children's best interest. Maryann now appeals.
To terminate parental rights, the district court must find clear
and convincing evidence that (1) at least one ground of parental fault exists,
and (2) termination is in the child's best interest. NRS 128.105(1); In re
Termination of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126,
132-33 (2000). On appeal, this court reviews questions of law de novo and
the district court's factual findings for substantial evidence. In re Parental
Rights as to A.L., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014).
Maryann first argues that the district court erred by
terminating her parental rights because the Department did not
demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to reunite her with the
3The children have lived with A.M. for most of their lives.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A
children.4 See NRS 432B.393 (requiring the Department to "make
reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family of a child" in the
Department's custody). But the district court properly waived the
reasonable efforts requirement because this was the second time the
children were removed from Maryann's care due to concerns of abuse and
neglect. See NRS 432B.393(3)(d) (providing that reasonable efforts are not
required if the child was "previously removed from the home, adjudicated
to have been abused or neglected, returned to the home and subsequently
removed from the home as the result of additional abuse or neglect").
Regardless, the Department made numerous efforts to engage Maryann in
services so that it could safely return the children to her care. See NRS
432B.393(1)(b), (2) (providing that the Department's reasonable efforts
should be focused on "the health and safety of the child" and "mak[ing] it
possible for the safe return of the child to the home").
Further, substantial evidence supports the district court's
parent fault findings of unfitness, token efforts to care for the children, and
failure of parental adjustment.5 Maryann demonstrated parental unfitness
4Maryann's argument that we must reverse because she was not
always represented by counsel below fails as there is no right to counsel in
parental rights termination proceedings. In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O.,
121 Nev. 379, 388, 115 P.3d 223, 225 (2005). Further, the record reflects
that the district court appointed three separate attorneys to represent her,
and she was represented by counsel at trial. See NRS 128.100(3) (providing
that the district court rnay appoint an attorney to represent a parent in
termination proceedings).
5While Maryann does not clearly challenge the district court's
findings regarding parental fault, we address those findings to the extent
her arguments could be construed as such. Because only one ground of
parental fault is required to support the termination of parental rights, see
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A
• ..te
by her repeated domestic violence and substance abuse issues, which
prevented her from providing adequate care for the children.° See NRS
128.018 (defining an "unfit parent" as a parent "who, by reason of the
parent's fault or habit or conduct ... fails to provide [their] child with
proper care, guidance and support"). Because the children had resided out
of her care for more than 14 of 20 consecutive months, the district court
properly applied the statutory presumption that Maryann had only engaged
in token efforts to care for the children. See NRS 128.109(1)(a) (providing
that it is presumed that a parent has only made token efforts when the
children have resided outside of the parent's care for more than 14 of 20
consecutive months). And we agree with the district court that Maryann
did not rebut that presumption, given that she provided no support for the
children while they were out of her care; maintained inconsistent contact
with the children; and made minimal efforts to engage in services to help
address her mental health, domestic violence, and substance abuse issues.
See In re Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 432-32, 92 P.3d 1230,
1.237 (2004) (concluding that a parent's "failure to adequately address her
NRS 128.105(1)(b) (requiring a finding of at least one ground of parental
fault), we need not review all of the district court's parental fault grounds.
°To the extent Maryann argues the district court based its decision on
falsified evidence, that argument is belied by the record as substantial
evidence supports the district court's factual findings and credibility
determinations are for the district court to make. See In re N.J., 116 Nev.
at 795, 8 P.3d at 129 ("This court will uphold termination orders based on
substantial evidence."); see also In re Parental Rights as to C.J.M., 118 Nev.
724, 732, 58 P.3d 188, 194 (2002) (explaining that this court will not
substitute its judgment for the district court's credibility determinations
because "the trial court was in a position to observe the demeanor of the
parties and weigh their credibility").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 4
(07 I947A auiSr40
drug problem" despite being provided with "extensive drug rehabilitation
services" supported a district court's token efforts finding). Additionally,
substantial evidence supports the district court's finding of a failure of
parental adjustment, given that Maryann refused to take responsibility for
the conditions which led to the children being removed from her care, she
failed to substantially comply with her case plan by only briefly engaging in
services, and she neglected to provide the Department "with proof of
economic or residential stability." In re Parental Rights as to A.J.G., 122
Nev. 1418, 1428-29, 148 P.3d 759, 766 (2006); see also NRS 128.0126
(defining "failure of parental adjustment").
Based on the length of time the children were outside of
Maryann's care, the district court also properly applied the statutory
presumption that terrnination was in the children's best interest. See NRS
128.109(2) (providing that termination of parental rights is presumed to be
in a child's best interest if that child has been placed outside of the parent's
home for 14 of any consecutive 20 months). We further conclude that the
district court properly found that Maryann failed to rebut that presumption
because she did not "show that there was a reasonable prospect that [s]he
could provide for the minor children's basic needs in a reasonable period of
time." In re Parental Rights as to M.F., 132 Nev. 209, 217-18, 371 P.3d 995,
1001 (2016). Maryann produced no evidence that she had current
employment or other resources to maintain stable housing or meet the
children's other basic needs. And the record demonstrates that since being
removed from Maryann's care, the children have enjoyed a stable home life
with A.M., who has provided for all of their "food, clothing and medical care"
needs. NRS 128.108(3)-(4). Indeed, the record shows that the children are
thriving in A.M.'s home, they are well-bonded to her and are fully integrated
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 5
(0) I 947A
into her family, and A.M. is committed to adopting them.7 See NRS 128.108
(providing that when a child is placed with an adoptive resource, the district
court "shall consider whether the child has become integrated into the foster
family . . . [and] whether the foster family is able and willing . . . to treat the
child as a member of the family"). Thus, substantial evidence also supports
the district court's finding that terminating Maryann's parental rights was
in the children's best interest. Based upon the foregoing, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.8
Parraguirre
, J. Sr.J.
Cadish
cc: Hon. Margaret E. Pickard, District Judge, Family Court Division
Maryann B.N.
Allen Lichtenstein
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
7To the extent Maryann suggests that the district court failed to
properly consider the children's best interests because the children did not
testify at trial, we note that children are not required to testify and that the
children in this case were represented by counsel below.
8The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
6
(0) 1947A