In re Parental Rights As To L.C.N., 111519 NVSC, 77165

Docket Nº:77165
Opinion Judge:GIBBON C.J.
Party Name:IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.C.N., A MINOR CHILD. Appellant, v. ERICK E.; AND CASSANDRA E., Respondents. SEAN M.I., Appellant,
Judge Panel:Silver J. DOUGLAS, Sr. J., dissenting Hon. Thomas W. Gregory, District Judge
Case Date:November 15, 2019
Court:Supreme Court of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO L.C.N., A MINOR CHILD. Appellant,

SEAN M.I., Appellant,

v.

ERICK E.; AND CASSANDRA E., Respondents.

No. 77165

Supreme Court of Nevada

November 15, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBON C.J.

This is an appeal from a district court order terminating appellant's parental rights as to his minor child.1 Ninth Judicial District Court, Douglas County; Thomas W. Gregory, Judge.

To terminate parental rights, the district court must find clear and convincing evidence that (1) at least one ground of parental fault exists, and (2) termination is in the child's best interest. NRS 128.105(1); In re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000). On appeal, this court reviews questions of law de novo and the district court's factual findings for substantial evidence. In re Parental Rights as to AX., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014).

Appellant argues that substantial evidence does not support the district court's finding of the parental fault ground of abandonment. He also argues that termination was improper as no services had been provided to him to facilitate a reunion with the child.2

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's findings that appellant abandoned the child. NRS l28.lO5(1)(b); j NRS 128.107. Because appellant has left the child in respondents' care i without provision for the child's support and without communication for a period of 6 months, the presumption that appellant abandoned the child applies. NRS 128.012(2). Appellant did not overcome this presumption. He has failed to provide respondents with any support for the child and has not requested visitations with the child. Further, he has failed to comply with court-ordered mediation or to cooperate with CASA, which might have led to visits with the child. Additionally, NRS 128.107 does not require services be provided to appellant to facilitate a reunion with the child; it only requires the district court to consider such services, which the district court did here. The district court also considered that because appellant has...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP