in Re: Parental Rights as to Nivela ( 2013 )

 adjustment may also be presumed where the parent substantially fails to
comply with a case plan for reunification within six months. NRS
128.109(1)(b). Once established, these presumptions may be rebutted by
the parent. Matter of 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. Matter of
Parental Rights as to 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 termination was in the children's best interests
and that parental fault was established based on parental unfitness,
failure to make parental adjustments, and only token efforts. NRS
128.105. The court further found that the presumptions under NRS
128.109 applied and were not overcome by appellant.
Having considered the parties' arguments on appeal and the
appellate record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
district court's findings that the statutory presumptions applied, that
appellant failed to overcome the presumptions, that there was clear and
convincing evidence of parental fault, and that termination of appellant's
parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The record shows
that at the time of the termination trial the children had been out of the
home for over two years, and appellant had failed to substantially
complete her case plan within that same period. In particular, while
appellant had made efforts to comply with her case plan and had
maintained visitation with the children, she failed to achieve the
necessary objective of developing a protective capacity and being able to
provide a safe environment for them. The district court found that the
children's need for stability and permanency precluded allowing appellant
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
additional time to address these safety concerns. We conclude that
substantial evidence supports the district court's decision that termination
was warranted. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Douglas
J.
Saitta
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Department C
Christopher R. Tilman
Mills & Mills
Law Offices of Romeo R. Perez, P.C.
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A