In Re: Parental Rights as to M.J.M.H., and J.M.K.H. ( 2015 )

 children's best interests and that respondent had established appellant's
parental fault because she had failed to adjust the circumstances that led
to the removal of the children and she had neglected the children as her
drug use rendered her unable to consistently provide care for them. This
appeal followed.
Having considered appellant's arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's
order granting the petition to terminate appellant's parental rights. See
In re Parental Rights as to A.J.G., 122 Nev. 1418, 1423, 148 P.3d 759, 763
(2006) (explaining that this court will uphold a termination order if the
district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence).
Substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that the
children's best interests will be served by terminating appellant's parental
rights. Id.; NRS 128.105(1) (1999) (amended 2015). Appellant failed to
rebut the presumption in NRS 128.109(2) (1999) (amended 2015) that
termination is in the oldest child's best interest as he had resided outside
of her care for 14 of 20 consecutive months at the time of trial. Further,
substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that both
children are bonded with their foster family, who are interested in
adopting them, and that appellant is not strongly bonded with the
children as she failed to consistently visit them and she would only ask
her caseworker about an older child who was removed from her care but is
not the subject of this case, instead of asking about these children. NRS
128.105(1) (1999) (amended 2015).
Substantial evidence also supports the district court's findings
of parental fault. A.J.G., 122 Nev. at 1423, 148 P.3d at 763; NRS
128.105(2)(b), (d) (1999) (amended 2015) (providing that parental fault is
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I 947A
established when the parent neglects the child or the parent has failed to
adjust the circumstances leading to the child's removal). While appellant
did complete her physical abuse classes, substantial evidence supports the
district court's conclusion that appellant did not demonstrate that she
would not abuse the children in the future as she attempted to minimize
the physical abuse. Further, her failure to complete her substance abuse
treatment and consistently submit to random drug testing also supports
the district court's finding that she failed to adjust the circumstances that
led to the children's removal. NRS 128.0126; A.J.G., 122 Nev. at 1423,
148 P.3d at 763. Additionally, because of her failure to address her drug
problem, substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that she
neglected thefl children because she has failed to provide them with proper
parental care by reason of her faults or habits. NRS 128.014(1); In re N.J.,
125 Nev. 835, 844-45, 221 P.3d 1255, 1262 (2009). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Etta
Gibbons Pickering
cc: Hon. Frank P Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division
Autumn H.
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 04049