Turner v. Saka

Nevada Supreme Court

Turner v. Saka

546 P.2d 233, 92 Nev. 108, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 530

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 20, 1976

DocketNo. 8057

StatusPublished

This text of 546 P.2d 233 (Turner v. Saka) 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

Turner v. Saka, 546 P.2d 233, 92 Nev. 108, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 530 (Neb. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Following our decision in Turner v. Saka, 90 Nev. 54, 518 P.2d 608 (1974), appellant Kenneth Turner sought to adopt his wife’s two “illegitimate” children, Shanin and David Saka. Appellant Tondelayo Turner, the children’s natural mother, joined in his petition and consented pursuant to NRS 127.030¹ and 127.040(1)(c).² After receiving notice of the pending adoption, respondent Elias Saka, the children’s natural father, petitioned to establish his parental relation under NRS 41.530(1).³ The district court consolidated the proceedings and, there being no dispute as to respondent Saka’s paternity, the district court granted his petition, and thereupon denied appellants’ petition because Saka had not consented to the adoption as required by NRS 127.040(1) (c). Appellants here contend paternity alone is insufficient to justify declaring the parental relationship established, absent proof that it is in the best interests of the children. We disagree.

[110]*110We are not here concerned with whether a petition to terminate Saka’s parental rights would lie. None has yet been filed. See: NRS 128.010 et seq. On the pleadings before it, the district court was only called upon to determine existence of the parental relationship under NRS 41.530. For that purpose, by the statute’s express words, proof of paternity alone seems sufficient. Cf. Huntingdon v. Crowley, 51 Cal.Rptr. 254, 414 P.2d 382 (1966); Girardin v. Hall, 320 P.2d 163 (Cal.App. 1958); Felts v. Betts, 315 P.2d 73 (Cal.App. 1957).

Affirmed.

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

OPINION

Per Curiam:

Following our decision in Turner v. Saka, 90 Nev. 54, 518 P.2d 608 (1974), appellant Kenneth Turner sought to adopt his wife’s two “illegitimate” children, Shanin and David Saka. Appellant Tondelayo Turner, the children’s natural mother, joined in his petition and consented pursuant to NRS 127.030¹ and 127.040(1)(c).² After receiving notice of the pending adoption, respondent Elias Saka, the children’s natural father, petitioned to establish his parental relation under NRS 41.530(1).³ The district court consolidated the proceedings and, there being no dispute as to respondent Saka’s paternity, the district court granted his petition, and thereupon denied appellants’ petition because Saka had not consented to the adoption as required by NRS 127.040(1) (c). Appellants here contend paternity alone is insufficient to justify declaring the parental relationship established, absent proof that it is in the best interests of the children. We disagree.

[110]*110We are not here concerned with whether a petition to terminate Saka’s parental rights would lie. None has yet been filed. See: NRS 128.010 et seq. On the pleadings before it, the district court was only called upon to determine existence of the parental relationship under NRS 41.530. For that purpose, by the statute’s express words, proof of paternity alone seems sufficient. Cf. Huntingdon v. Crowley, 51 Cal.Rptr. 254, 414 P.2d 382 (1966); Girardin v. Hall, 320 P.2d 163 (Cal.App. 1958); Felts v. Betts, 315 P.2d 73 (Cal.App. 1957).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 P.2d 233, 92 Nev. 108, 1976 Nev. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-saka-nev-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack