Molly L. v. Bryan T. (In re S.A.T.)

• Docket Number: 89258
• Decision Date: 02 October 2025
• Citation: Molly L. v. Bryan T. (In re S.A.T.), 141 Nev., Adv. Op 46, 89258 (Nev. Oct 02, 2025)
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.A.T., A MINOR CHILD. v. BRYAN T., Respondent. MOLLY L., Appellant,
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

1

141 Nev., Adv. Op 46

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO S.A.T., A MINOR CHILD.

MOLLY L., Appellant,
v.
BRYAN T., Respondent.

No. 89258

Supreme Court of Nevada

October 2, 2025

Appeal from a district court order denying a petition to terminate respondent's parental rights. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County; Heidi Almase, Judge.

Burger, Meyer & D'Angelo, LLP, and Curtis R. Rawlings, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Roberts Stoffel Family Law Group and Amanda M. Roberts, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, HERNDON, C.J, and PARRAGUIRRE and STIGLICH, JJ.

OPINION

STIGLICH, J.

In Nevada, a petition to terminate parental rights may be filed by the state or another entity or individual, including another parent.

2

When the state files such a petition, its interest is focused on the child's safety, protection, and stability. This can be in stark difference to the motivations behind a petition to terminate parental rights filed by one parent against another parent.

In this case, a parent asked the district court to sever the other parent's parental rights where the child was safe and well cared for, but the child had not had contact with the other parent for several years. That lack of communication can establish that the parent has made only token efforts to communicate with and support the child, which is a ground for parental fault that may support termination of a parent's rights. Even so, this parental-fault ground poses unique concerns when the petition has been initiated by a parent who has custody of and control over the child. Considering that context, we now hold that terminating parental rights in a private termination action based solely on the parental-fault ground of token efforts to communicate with the child is disfavored. We further hold that a parent does not admit a parental-fault ground simply by failing to oppose it when responding to the termination petition. Because the district court correctly found that appellant had not proven the alleged grounds of parental fault by clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the district court's order denying the private petition to terminate respondent's parental rights.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Molly L. and respondent Bryan T. are the natural parents of S.A.T. and K.W.T. The parties divorced in 2014. They stipulated to joint legal custody and to Molly having primary physical custody of the children.

This arrangement worked well initially, and Bryan remained involved in the children's lives. But in 2016, Bryan exhibited various

3

mental health issues and was treated by several mental health facilities. During the height of Bryan's mental health crisis, in July 2016, he got in an altercation with Molly's wife when picking the children up for visitation. Bryan sped off with the children in his vehicle. Knowing that he needed medical help, Bryan drove with the children to the hospital, where he had a significant mental health episode. Hospital staff had to physically remove S.A.T. from Bryan's hands. The children were returned to Molly. Following that incident, Molly obtained a temporary protective order barring Bryan from contacting Molly or the children for 30 days.

Molly then sought to extend the TPO. Bryan, who had been hospitalized for several months following the July incident, did not attend the hearing on the extended TPO. A district judge granted that request on September 30, 2016. The extended TPO required Bryan to stay away from Molly and the children until July 18, 2017, or until Bryan "undergoes a psychological evaluation" by a licensed psychologist and completes psychological counseling to ensure he can safely be around the children. With respect to the evaluation and counseling requirements, the extended TPO provided that they "should be significant and should address [Bryan]'s state of mind . . . and what he is doing on a regular basis to treat his bipolar disorder." But the extended TPO left the door open for Bryan to seek supervised visitation by contacting Molly's counsel, provided that Bryan first sought available treatment.

Bryan was discharged from the hospital later in 2016. At that point, Bryan went to stay with his mother in Kansas for a few months. Upon returning to Nevada in early 2017, Bryan learned that Molly was garnishing his retirement account to satisfy child support arrearages that had accrued during 2016. The garnishment was the result of a child support action Molly initiated. According to Bryan, he also learned about the

4

extended TPO for the first time from a police officer.^[1] Fearing that he could be held in contempt for violating the extended TPO, Bryan did not try to contact Molly or the children. Bryan later testified, however, that he tried to get help to reestablish visitation with the children over the next several years. In particular, he attended multiple "Ask-a-Lawyer" presentations in hopes of getting assistance, but he was left with the impression that he needed to hire an attorney. Bryan testified that he could not afford to do so. Bryan also tried to seek mediation through the child support action that Molly had initiated. That effort was unsuccessful. During that time, Bryan had no communication or visitation with the children. Bryan was able, however, to reestablish contact with Molly's adult child, Zachary. Although Zachary and Bryan are not biologically related, Bryan helped raise Zachary and was initially allowed to have visitation with Zachary following Bryan and Molly's divorce.

Aside from the extended TPO, Molly took other steps to prevent Bryan having contact with the children. For example, Molly did not allow the children to ride the bus to school or have after-school jobs out of fear that Bryan might contact or try to take the children. Molly also cut off all ties to Bryan's mother. And by 2019, Molly had moved. She notably did not update her address in the child support action, resulting in the closure of that action.

In 2021, Bryan received an inheritance. With the new financial resources, Bryan hired an attorney in hopes of resuming visitation with the children. Upon counsel's advice, Bryan reopened the child support action and made a lump-sum payment to cover the arrearages that had accrued

5

since the action was closed. Bryan also obtained a psychological evaluation and counseling as outlined in the extended TPO. Shortly after Bryan provided proof of treatment to Molly, she filed a petition to terminate Bryan's parental rights as to K.W.T. and S.A.T. K.W.T. emancipated during the proceedings and later committed suicide. As a result, the petition proceeded only as to S.A.T.

At the evidentiary hearing, the doctor who evaluated Bryan testified that Bryan's mental health issues were under control, that Bryan had not had any manic episodes since 2016, and that the doctor had no concerns about Bryan's mental health. Zachary also testified on Bryan's behalf. Both Bryan and Zachary testified that Molly did not inform either of them about K.W.T.'s death and they only learned that K.W.T. had died because of information they saw online. After the evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the petition, finding that Molly did not demonstrate any parental-fault ground. Molly appeals.

DISCUSSION

A party seeking to terminate parental rights bears the burden to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, at least one ground of parental fault and that termination is in the child's best interest.NRS 128.105(1); In re Parental Rts. as to A.J.G., 122 Nev. 1418, 1423, 148 P.3d 759, 762 (2006). Because the district court's decision rests on Molly's failure to demonstrate parental fault, we necessarily focus on only that part of the inquiry. In doing so, we review questions of law de novo and the district court's factual findings for substantial evidence.In re Parental Rts. as to A.L.,130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014).

The district court properly found no grounds of parental fault

Molly argues the district court abused its discretion by failing to find the parental-fault grounds of abandonment, neglect, and token

6

efforts. In particular, Molly alleges that Bryan has not seen or communicated with S.A.T. for several years and Bryan only paid child support through an enforcement action. Because the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, we are not convinced the district court erred in denying Molly's private termination petition. We therefore affirm.

Abandonment

Molly argues the evidence supports a presumption that Bryan abandoned S.A.T. Bryan argues that he rebutted the presumption of abandonment by demonstrating he lacked a settled purpose to forgo all parental rights as to S.A.T. We agree with Bryan.

"Abandonment of a child" is defined in NRS 128.012(1) as "any conduct . . . which evinces a settled purpose on the part of [a] parent[ ] to forego all parental custody and relinquish all claims to the child." "Intent is the decisive factor in abandonment and may be shown by the facts and circumstances."In re Parental Rts. as to Montgomery,112 Nev. 719, 727, 917 P.2d 949, 955 (1996), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re Termination of Parental Rts. as to N.J.,116 Nev. 790, 798-99, 8 P.3d 126, 131-32 (2000). A parent may "demonstrate[ ] an intent not to abandon [their] child by providing financial support and/or by maintaining contact with the child."Greeson v. Barnes,111 Nev. 1198, 1204, 900 P.2d 943, 947 (1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in In re N.J.,116 Nev. at 799-800, 8 P.3d at 132. But a rebuttable presumption of abandonment arises when a parent "leave[s] the child in the care and custody of another without provision for the child's support and without communication for a period of 6 months."NRS 128.012(2).

7

Substantial evidence...