in Re: Parental Rights as to N.T. and S.G.

128.109(1)(a) and (2). Appellant contends that the children had been placed outside of respondent's home for over 24 months at the time that the termination trial commenced. According to appellant, the district court erroneously determined that the presumptions did not apply because the 14-month time requirement had not been met since the filing of a second petition for abuse and neglect under NRS Chapter 432B. Even assuming that the presumption set forth in NRS 128.109 applied here, we conclude that the district court properly found that respondent had rebutted the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Parental Rights as to J.D.N., 128 Nev. „ 283 P.3d 842, 849 (2012); In re Parental Rights of J.L.N., 118 Nev. 621, 625-26, 55 P.3d 955, 958 (2002). The district court found that respondent's compliance with her case plan was reasonable. It further found that, to the extent that respondent had not complied with her case plan, such noncompliance was due in large part to her financial limitations. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court's decision in this regard is supported by substantial evidence. In re Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004). Appellant also contends that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to find parental fault. See NRS 128.105(2). Appellant argues that there was clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness, neglect, only token efforts by respondent to care for her children, and a serious risk of harm if the children were returned to respondent's care. Id. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's determination that there was not clear and convincing evidence of parental fault. See Parental SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A =WNW Right of D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428, 92 P.3d at 1234; In re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 795, 8 P.3d 126, 129 (2000). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1 , J. desty GUItA Parraguirre J. cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Kristina M. Wildeveld Eighth District Court Clerk 'In the opening brief, appellant identified a third appellate issue concerning the district court's finding that the evidence did not establish a preference for an adoptive resource for the children. Because appellant failed to provide any analysis or argument on this issue in the brief, we do not address it. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ' 2! tf• •