Cloninger v. Russell
| Decision Date | 29 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 13987,13987 |
| Citation | 98 Nev. 597,655 P.2d 528 |
| Parties | Denise Diane CLONINGER, Appellant, v. Richard Dean RUSSELL, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order terminating the parental rights of appellant Cloninger to her natural son, Benjamin Russell. Proceedings were conducted in accordance with NRS 128.090(3) which provides that the standard of proof to be adduced in the proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence.
In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982), which was decided after the hearing and order in this case, it was held by the United States Supreme Court that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution requires, as a minimum, a standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence rather than of a preponderance of evidence before a state may irrevocably terminate the rights of a parent to a natural child.
We elect to adopt clear and convincing evidence as the standard of proof in parental rights termination proceedings and remand to the district court with instructions to rehear the matter in a manner consistent with this opinion.
The minimum constitutional standard of clear and convincing evidence shall be applied prospectively and shall not apply...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Parental Rights as to NJ
...Due process requires that clear and convincing evidence be established before terminating parental rights. See Cloninger v. Russell, 98 Nev. 597, 655 P.2d 528 (1982). This court will uphold termination orders based on substantial evidence, and will not substitute its own judgment for that o......
-
Daly v. Daly, 15423
...591 (1960), this Court recognized its duty to scrutinize the termination of parental rights. Moreover, this Court in Cloninger v. Russell, 98 Nev. 597, 655 P.2d 528 (1982), adopted the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof in parental rights termination proceedings as set forth in......
- State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Hill
- Jacobson v. Manfredi by Manfredi