SUMMARY: Adjudication was proper where there was a prior case involving physical abuse by a brother against Seherzada and current credible evidence establishing that both brothers had physical harmed Seherzada and that the mother was allowing them to do so.
On August 31, 2009, the State filed a petition alleging Seherzada came within the meaning of N.R.S. 43-247(3)(a) because the mother failed to protect Seherzada from bodily injury by her siblings. In 2007, the court adjudicated Seherzada under 43-247(3)(a) on similar facts, namely that a brother hit her in the face for talking with a black male student. That case was closed in December 2008 after it was shown the mother was able to protect Seherzada from her brother. In this case, Seherzada alleged that one brother hit her in the shoulder on August 25, 2009, after becoming upset in not knowing where to pick her up from school. Seherzada also alleged that in late August 2009 another brother shoved her into a wall and slapped her multiple times while her mother urged the brother to calm down. After trial, the court adjudicated Seherzada, finding her to be credible and without any motivation to fabricate. The court likewise found her brother while testifying to emote a sense of entitlement to discipline and lack deference to his mother’s role as the parent. The mother appealed the adjudication and alleged that this adjudication was merely a collateral attack on the previous decision to return Seherzada home in December 2008.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication. It first rejected the argument that the adjudication was a collateral attack on the first case, finding that the mother successfully corrected the conditions at that time. The Court of Appeals then concluded that it found no error in the juvenile court’s adjudication based on its findings noted above.