Turner v. Saka

Nevada Supreme Court

Turner v. Saka

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Turner v. Saka. Read the opinion of the Court — 90 Nev. 54 →

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided February 20, 1976·No. No. 8057·Published

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.

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

Pincite

546 P.2d 233 (Turner v. Saka) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related