Boatner v. Boatner

 reviews the district court's findings of fact for substantial evidence. In re
Parental Rights as to A.L., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 91, 337 P.3d 758, 761
(2014).
Substantial evidence supports the district court's findings of
parental fault. Both parties agree that appellant had not seen the
children since 2008, had not made an effort to keep in touch with
respondent or the children between 2008 and 2011, and had paid no child
support except for an IRS tax return intercept. This undisputed evidence
supports the district court's findings that appellant abandoned the
children, made only token efforts to communicate with the children, and
made no effort to support the children, and thus, that parental fault
grounds existed under NRS 128.105(2)(a) and (f)(1). See NRS 128.012
(defining abandonment of a child for parental fault purposes).
Substantial evidence also supports the district court's finding
that terminating appellant's rights would serve the children's best
interest. See NRS 128.105(1). The district court concluded that
terminating appellant's rights would promote stability in the children's
lives, strengthen their family unit, and best serve the continuing needs of
the children for mental and emotional growth and development.
Respondent testified that the children do not know appellant, and that
reintroducing her to them would be psychologically damaging and cause
negative behavior in the children. He explained that the older child had a
pervasive developmental disorder which would cause irreparable damage
if appellant came back into his life and left again. Respondent testified
that based on appellant's past behavior he was concerned that if
appellant's rights were not terminated she would exercise visitation for a
short period of time and then disappear, which would cause behavioral
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A )9M0
problems and psychological damage to both children. Appellant's past
depression and drug use, inability to follow through with a court-ordered
psychological evaluation, and three-year delay in seeking to reunite with
the children even after becoming clean, lends credence to these concerns.
Appellant sought to rebut respondent's testimony, testifying that she was
seeking treatment for her depression and would be a stable figure in the
children's lives. This court, however, will not reweigh on appeal the
credibility of witnesses. Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 103, 86 P.3d
1042, 1046 (2004) (providing that the duty of weighing witness credibility
'rests within the trier of fact's sound discretion"). Taken in sum, the
record provides substantial evidence supporting the district court's finding
that the children's best interest would be served by terminating
appellant's parental rights.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
cc: Hon. James E Wilson, District Judge
Robert B. Walker
Robert A. Grayson
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A e