in Re: Parental Rights as to J.H., B.H., C.H., M.H., S.H. and R.H.

Nevada Supreme Court

in Re: Parental Rights as to J.H., B.H., C.H., M.H., S.H. and R.H.

DecidedJuly 24, 2013

Docket61188

StatusUnpublished

This text of in Re: Parental Rights as to J.H., B.H., C.H., M.H., S.H. and R.H. (in Re: Parental Rights as to J.H., B.H., C.H., M.H., S.H. and R.H.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

in Re: Parental Rights as to J.H., B.H., C.H., M.H., S.H. and R.H., (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

The district court further found that appellant abandoned the children and failed to maintain any contact with the children after he was aware that they were in protective custody. See NRS 128.012. Moreover, the court found that appellant is incarcerated in the State of Oklahoma for arson, and that prior to his incarceration, he failed to complete any case plan on earlier petitions where the children were found to be in need of protection. See NRS 128.0126; NRS 128.106(6); In re Parental Rights as to K.D.L., 118 Nev. 737, 747-48, 58 P.3d 181, 187-88 (2002). Finally, the district court found that the children have been placed with familiar foster parents, who wish to adopt them. See NRS 128.108. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court's decision to terminate appellant's parental rights is supported by substantial evidence. In re Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

IIMEMEREMI cc: Hon. Cheryl B. Moss, District Judge, Family Court Division Jerry H. Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada Clark County District Attorney Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The district court further found that appellant abandoned the children and failed to maintain any contact with the children after he was aware that they were in protective custody. See NRS 128.012. Moreover, the court found that appellant is incarcerated in the State of Oklahoma for arson, and that prior to his incarceration, he failed to complete any case plan on earlier petitions where the children were found to be in need of protection. See NRS 128.0126; NRS 128.106(6); In re Parental Rights as to K.D.L., 118 Nev. 737, 747-48, 58 P.3d 181, 187-88 (2002). Finally, the district court found that the children have been placed with familiar foster parents, who wish to adopt them. See NRS 128.108. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court's decision to terminate appellant's parental rights is supported by substantial evidence. In re Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.