In Re: Parental Rights as to D.W., N.W., D.W. and C.I. ( 2014 )

 benefit from the stability and security of the termination of appellants'
parental rights. NRS 128.105(1).
On appeal, appellants contend that the district court's decision
is not justified because appellant Angel S. completed certain counseling
requirements in connection with prior neglect proceedings, and both
appellants were financially unable to complete required counseling in
connection with this neglect proceeding. The record indicates that the
district court entered an order determining that respondent was not
required to undertake reasonable efforts to return the children to
appellants under NRS 432B.393(1). NRS 432B.393 provides that a child
welfare agency is not required to make reasonable efforts to preserve and
reunify the family if a parent abused the child in an extreme or repetitious
manner, so as to indicate that returning the child to the home would put
the child at risk; or if the child or the siblings of the child have been
previously removed from the home and adjudicated as abused or
neglected, returned to the home, and then removed from the home again
as a result of additional abuse or neglect. See NRS 432B.393(3)(a)(3) and
(d). The district court specifically found that the eldest child had suffered
terrible physical abuse by appellant Carlin I. and that the child had been
previously abused and removed from the home, returned to the home, and
subsequently abused. Therefore, respondent was not obligated to assist
appellants with the counseling required in association with this abuse and
neglect proceeding based on the waiver of reasonable efforts under NRS
432B.393. Additionally, Angel S.'s completion of previous counseling
requirements associated with prior neglect proceedings had no impact on
the present proceedings that arose from new circumstances of abuse and
neglect.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Appellants also contend that the incident resulting in the last
removal of the children from the home was an accident and not the result
of abuse. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the district court's conclusion that the injuries were
sustained as a result of abuse. In re Parental Rights as to D.H., 120 Nev.
422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004) (providing that this court will uphold
a district court's termination order if it is supported by substantial
evidence).
Therefore, we conclude that the district court properly
terminated appellants' parental rights, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pieku tue J.
Pickering
, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Steven E. Jones, District Judge, Family Court Division
Angel S.
Carlin I.
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e