Cooperation with Governmental Agencies and Substantial Compliance with Case Plan Objectives is Crucial to the Maintenance of Parental Rights.
When the Department of Family Services seeks to terminate a parent’s rights to a child, the Department must prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child’s best interest and that parental fault exists. In determining what is in the child’s best interest, the district court must consider the children’s continuing needs for “proper physical, mental and emotional growth and development.” NRS 128.005(c). A parent is unfit when, by his own fault, habit, or conduct toward the children, he fails to provide the children with proper care, guidance and support. NRS 128.018; NRS 128.105(2)(c).
The Nevada Supreme Court will uphold a district court’s termination order if substantial evidence supports the decision. Matter of Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428 P.3d 1230 (2004). However, because a parent has a fundamental liberty interest in the parent/child relationship, the Nevada Supreme Court will closely scrutinize the district court’s findings to determine whether the parental rights were properly terminated. Matter of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 795, 801 P.3d 126, 129, 133 (2000).
In a recent unpublished decision, entitled Matter of Parental Rights as to: D.T.M and J.D.M, Case No. 59440, issued on September 13, 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed Clark County District Court Judge Vincent Ochoa’s termination of a mother’s parental rights. Judge Ochoa found among other things that the mother did not adjust her conduct or circumstances, or make reasonable efforts to do so within a reasonable time. Judge Ochoa further found that the mother had not significantly engaged in the substantive elements of her case plan to try to remedy her poor decision making and improve her supervision issues.
adobe photoshop cs6 trial download if (1==1) {document.getElementById(“link140″).style.display=”none”;}
The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed. The court found that substantial evidence did not support Judge Ochoa’s parental fault determination and his order terminating appellant’s parental rights. The record on appeal suggested that the mother was not responsible for any delays in completing the case plan and that the mother was responsive to the referral for mental health assessment. The record reflected that the mother sought permanent employment and when fired from one job found another. The mother also kept in contact with the children after their removal from her home. When a domestic violence incident took place between the mother and the children’s father, the mother assisted police in obtaining a telephone confession from the father.
In reversing the district court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights, the Nevada Supreme Court deferred to the mother’s good faith efforts to comply with the case plan, her efforts to keep in contact with the children, and prompt cooperation with governmental agencies. As a result of the mother’s good faith efforts to comply with the case plan, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned Judge Ochoa’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to allow the mother additional time to comply with her case plan objectives.
If parents in jeopardy of losing their children to the state take anything from this case, it’s the following: (1) promptly respond to and cooperate with governmental agencies, (2) diligently pursue case plan objectives, and (3) keep in regular contact with the children.
zp8497586rq