eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2013-06

in Re: Parental Rights as to N.T. and S.G. ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •                 128.109(1)(a) and (2). Appellant contends that the children had been
placed outside of respondent's home for over 24 months at the time that
the termination trial commenced. According to appellant, the district
court erroneously determined that the presumptions did not apply because
the 14-month time requirement had not been met since the filing of a
second petition for abuse and neglect under NRS Chapter 432B.
Even assuming that the presumption set forth in NRS 128.109
applied here, we conclude that the district court properly found that
respondent had rebutted the presumption by a preponderance of the
evidence. In re Parental Rights as to J.D.N., 128 Nev. „
    283 P.3d 842
    , 849 (2012); In re Parental Rights of J.L.N.,
    118 Nev. 621
    , 625-26,
    55 P.3d 955
    , 958 (2002). The district court found that respondent's
compliance with her case plan was reasonable. It further found that, to
the extent that respondent had not complied with her case plan, such
noncompliance was due in large part to her financial limitations. Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court's decision in this
regard is supported by substantial evidence.   In re Parental Rights as to
D.R.H.,
    120 Nev. 422
    , 428,
    92 P.3d 1230
    , 1234 (2004).
Appellant also contends that the district court abused its
discretion when it failed to find parental fault.       See NRS 128.105(2).
Appellant argues that there was clear and convincing evidence of parental
unfitness, neglect, only token efforts by respondent to care for her
children, and a serious risk of harm if the children were returned to
respondent's care.
    Id.
       Having reviewed the record, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the district court's determination that there
was not clear and convincing evidence of parental fault.       See Parental
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
=WNW
Right of D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428,
    92 P.3d at 1234
    ; In re Termination of
Parental Rights as to N.J.,
    116 Nev. 790
    , 795,
    8 P.3d 126
    , 129 (2000).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1
, J.
desty
GUItA
Parraguirre
J.
cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Kristina M. Wildeveld
Eighth District Court Clerk
'In the opening brief, appellant identified a third appellate issue
concerning the district court's finding that the evidence did not establish a
preference for an adoptive resource for the children. Because appellant
failed to provide any analysis or argument on this issue in the brief, we do
not address it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest.,
    122 Nev. 317
    , 330
n.38,
    130 P.3d 1280
    , 1288 n.38 (2006).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
' 2! tf• •