In Re: Parental Rights as to K. W.

Nevada Supreme Court

In Re: Parental Rights as to K. W.

DecidedJune 11, 2015

Docket64527

StatusUnpublished

This text of In Re: Parental Rights as to K. W. (In Re: Parental Rights as to K. W.) 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 K. W., (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

hearing and an opportunity to be heard. See In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 382, 115 P.3d 223, 225 (2005); see also Gonzales- Alpizar v. Griffith, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 2, 317 P.3d 820, 827 (2014). We conclude that the failure to notify appellant in the manner provided under NRCP 5 of the November 21, 2013, continued hearing date was contrary to NRS 128.090(4) and violated appellant's due process rights because she was not present at the second day of the hearing, was representing herself, and did not have an adequate opportunity to defend the action. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order and remand this matter for further proceedings. We caution appellant, however, that provided she receives adequate notice and opportunity to defend the action on remand, her failure or refusal to appear at the hearing falls outside the ambit of due process protections and will not be excused. It is so ORDERED. 1

CALELCL , J. Saitta

eke4 , J. Pickering i

'We have considered all pro se motions and other documents filed by appellant and conclude that no additional relief requested therein is warranted.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A e cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge DeAnn J.W. Daniel A.W. Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 19410,

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

hearing and an opportunity to be heard. See In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev. 379, 382, 115 P.3d 223, 225 (2005); see also Gonzales- Alpizar v. Griffith, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 2, 317 P.3d 820, 827 (2014). We conclude that the failure to notify appellant in the manner provided under NRCP 5 of the November 21, 2013, continued hearing date was contrary to NRS 128.090(4) and violated appellant's due process rights because she was not present at the second day of the hearing, was representing herself, and did not have an adequate opportunity to defend the action. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order and remand this matter for further proceedings. We caution appellant, however, that provided she receives adequate notice and opportunity to defend the action on remand, her failure or refusal to appear at the hearing falls outside the ambit of due process protections and will not be excused. It is so ORDERED. 1