in Re: Parental Rights as to V.S., V.H., G.Y. and G.H. ( 2013 )

 D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428-33, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234-37 (2004). Additionally,
if a child is placed outside of the home for 14 of any 20 consecutive
months, it must be presumed that the parent has demonstrated only token
efforts and that termination is in the child's best interest. NRS
128.109(1)(a) and (2). The parent's failure to comply substantially with a
case plan for reunification within six months is evidence of the failure of
parental adjustment. NRS 128.109(1)(b). Once established, these
presumptions may be rebutted by the parent. In re Parental Rights as to
J.L.N., 118 Nev. 621, 625-26, 55 P.3d 955, 958 (2002). This court will
uphold the district court's termination order if it is supported by
substantial evidence. In re D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428, 92 P.3d at 1234.
In terminating appellant's parental rights in this case, the
district court found that the presumptions under NRS 128.109 applied and
were not overcome by appellant. The court further found that termination
was in the children's best interests and that parental fault was
established based on appellant's parental unfitness, failure to make
parental adjustments, demonstration of only token efforts, and a risk of
serious injury to the children if returned to appellant. In particular,
appellant failed to achieve the objective of his case plan and address his
substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence issues. The court
further found that the children were bonded with their current caregivers
and that termination would promote the children's stability and security.
Having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude that the statutory
SUPREME COURT
OF 2
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
requirements for termination were met and that the district court's
decision is supported by the record. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1
Hardesty
po,
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. Steven E. Jones, District Judge, Family Court Division
Carmeno S.
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
1 Inlight of this order, we deny appellant's proper person motion for
a stay, motion for judgment and order, and motion for review and
reconsideration of order. Also, we have considered appellant's proper
person transcript request, and we conclude that the preparation of
transcripts is not necessary for our review of this appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF 3
NEVADA
(0) 1947A