SUMMARY: The filing of an original petition in juvenile confers jurisdiction on the juvenile court; therefore, any jurisdictional defect in transferring the case from the district court is moot. Termination of the father’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest because the child’s special...

SUMMARY: The court violated the parents’ rights when it failed to adopt DHHS’ plan of reunification because there was no evidence to show that the plan of reunification was not in the children’s best interest. Failure to adopt the plan and denial of the parents’ visitation with the children results...

SUMMARY: Once the court establishes a guardianship, the responsibility and authority of DHHS no longer exists other than that related to subsidized guardianships. However, the court has continuing jurisdiction over the case even after appointment of guardianship. On December 20, 2007, the court...

SUMMARY: The mother did not challenge DHHS parameters on visitation or timely appeal the court’s order permitting DHHS’ restrictions, and her argument therefore has no merit on appeal. Termination of parental rights was proper as to all children as the mother did not truly begin working on her...

SUMMARY: A father who voluntary relinquished his parental rights has no standing to request supervised visitation with the children. His request for visitation with a child whose parental rights he still retains was properly denied due to the fact that the serious nature of the allegations that he...

SUMMARY: An 18-day delay between the ex parte order and the detention hearing is “on the outer edge of reasonableness” but is not unreasonable. The evidentiary basis of an ex parte temporary detention order is not appealable because the ex parte order is not a final order. On November 5, 2007, the...

SUMMARY: A jury finding of liability under a §1983 claim based on violation of the father’s substantive due process rights in the relinquishment of his parental rights to Amanda C. has preclusive effect in the subsequent lawsuit brought by Amanda C. alleging violation of her substantive due process...

SUMMARY: Termination was in the children’s best interests because the mother did not substantially comply with the rehabilitation plan in the 20 months the children were out of the home, as she made minimal progress in addressing her parenting issues, did not undergo random drug testing, continued...

SUMMARY: Affirming the juvenile court’s termination of parental rights, the Court held that the multiple rib fractures and two subdural hematomas of differing ages in the infant child which all would have required a significant amount of force to occur supported the factor required for 43-292(2)...

SUMMARY: Because the court did not place the children in the father’s sister’s home as recommended by DHHS, proper appeal of the placement order is to the juvenile review panel and because no request for review was made the appellate court therefore lacks jurisdiction. Extensive criminal history...

SUMMARY: “Termination of parental rights is justified if a parent has committed murder of another child of the parent; committed voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent; aided or abetted, attempted, conspired or solicited to commit murder, or aided abetted voluntary manslaughter of the...

SUMMARY: In termination of parental rights cases involving NICWA, the “serious emotional and physical damage” element is the only element that has the higher burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt” as required by statute; all other elements, including active efforts and the best interests standard...

SUMMARY: If a child no longer comes within the meaning of the statute under which he was adjudicated, a juvenile court may terminate jurisdiction without consideration of the best interests of the child. Kevin K. was adjudicated on April 22, 2005 under N.R.S. 43-247(3)(b) upon a finding that he had...

SUMMARY: If a child no longer comes within the meaning of the statute under which he was adjudicated, a juvenile court may terminate jurisdiction without consideration of the best interests of the child. Kevin K. was adjudicated on April 22, 2005 under N.R.S. 43-247(3)(b) upon a finding that he had...

SUMMARY: Pursuant to N.R.S. 43-292.02, when deciding whether to terminate parental rights, a court should not consider than an adoptive family has been identified. The children, Vincent R., Destiny A. and Antonio A., were removed from the mother’s custody based on positive drug tests at birth of one...