Pyborn v. Quathamer

Decision Date06 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 11737,11737
Citation96 Nev. 145,605 P.2d 1147
PartiesWillard B. PYBORN, Appellant, v. Sheryl Pyborn QUATHAMER, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

Mills, Galliher, Lukens, Gibson, Schwartzer & Shinehouse, and Lamond R. Mills, Las Vegas, for appellant.

Nitz, Schofield & Nitz, and Paul H. Schofield, Las Vegas, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, Willard B. Pyborn contends the district court abused its discretion in granting respondent Sheryl Quathamer's petition to terminate Pyborn's parental rights to the parties' minor child, Adam Jason Pyborn. We disagree.

A hearing on the petition was held in February 1979. In its findings of fact, the district court stated, among other things, that Pyborn and Quathamer were divorced in 1975 and Quathamer was awarded custody of their child; that in May 1977, while exercising his visitation rights, Pyborn absconded to Tennessee with the child and kept him there until March 1978, when Quathamer finally regained custody; that Pyborn failed to provide the child with proper care and guidance while in Tennessee; and that Pyborn failed to communicate with or pay support for the child for a period exceeding six months after the child was returned to Quathamer. The court then concluded that Pyborn had abandoned and neglected the child and was an unfit parent, and ordered that his parental rights to the child be terminated.

A finding by the court that a parent has abandoned his child is sufficient ground, in and of itself, for termination of parental rights. N.R.S. 128.105(1). Whether a parent has abandoned his child is determined by the facts of each case, and a finding of abandonment will be upheld on appeal where there is substantial evidence in the record to support that finding. 1 Sernaker v. Ehrlich, 86 Nev. 277, 468 P.2d 5 (1970); Carson v. Lowe, 76 Nev. 446, 357 P.2d 591 (1960).

In the instant case, sufficient evidence was presented at the hearing on the petition to support the findings that Pyborn made no real attempts to communicate with the child for a period of approximately ten months after the child was reunited with his mother, and that for almost the same period he failed, or made only token efforts, to pay support for the child. "It is true that (Pyborn) sought to prove that his attempts to communicate with his infant son were frustrated by respondent . . ., and we are urged to accept this proof. This, of course, we cannot do in view of the court's findings." Carson v. Lowe...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Daniels, Matter of
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1998
    ...cases for defining parental abandonment. Id. at 648, 691 P.2d at 854. 1. Jurisdictional grounds In Pyborn v. Quathamer, 96 Nev. 145, 147, 605 P.2d 1147, 1148 (1980), we upheld a district court finding of abandonment where the father made no attempts to communicate with his son for a period ......
  • Daly v. Daly
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1986
    ...for Mary. Unlike the case of Pyborn v. Quathamer, where no "real attempt" to communicate or to support the child occurred, 96 Nev. 145, 146, 605 P.2d 1147 (1980), he attempted to visit Mary, attempted to communicate with Mary, and did help support Mary. There is thus no clear and convincing......
  • Greeson v. Barnes
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • August 24, 1995
    ...433, 776 P.2d 843, 845 (1989), this court cited with approval four pre-Champagne cases on the issue of abandonment: Pyborn v. Quathamer, 96 Nev. 145, 605 P.2d 1147 (1980); Sernaker v. Ehrlich, 86 Nev. 277, 468 P.2d 5 (1970); Casper v. Huber, 85 Nev. 474, 456 P.2d 436 (1969); and Carson v. L......
  • Adoption of Gotvaslee, Matter of
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1981
    ...of abandonment will be upheld on appeal where there is substantial evidence in the record to support that finding. Pyborn v. Quathamer, Nev., 605 P.2d 1147 (1980). It is undisputed that Douglas made no support payments between October, 1977, and January, 1979, even though he was employed du......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT