respondent from proving parental unfitness if she asserted that ground for
termination. See NRS 128.105(2)(c). At the termination hearing,
respondent presented evidence of appellant's parental unfitness,
independently of any finding in the guardianship matter. Additionally,
because the guardianship matter was so closely related to the termination
case and was heard by the same judge, we conclude that judicial notice
was proper. See Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 145, 625 P.2d 568, 569
(1981) (allowing judicial notice of a prior proceeding where the cases are
closely related).
Appellant also contends that the district court's parental
termination order contains only a summary statement that the child's best
interest is served by termination, but does not contain any specific factual
findings regarding the child's best interest. Appellant argues that
termination is not in the child's best interest because she has already lost
her father and terminating her relationship with her mother will likely
erode the child's relationship with her remaining natural family members.
In terminating parental rights, the district court must find by
clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best
interest and that at least one factor of parental fault exists. NRS 128.105;
Matter of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126,
132-33 (2000). The district court's decision, in either the written order or
oral pronouncement, cannot merely recite the statutory grounds for
termination, but must contain specific factual findings to support the
decision. In re Parental Rights as to C.C.A., 128 Nev. , 273 P.3d
852, 854 (2012). This court will uphold the district court's termination
order if it is supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Parental Rights
as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004).
In the written order, the district court found that the child's
SUPREME COURT best interest can only be served by terminating appellant's parental
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
rights. The district court stated that the child "has, at the hands of her
mother, had a childhood which no human should have." The district court
specifically found that appellant's conduct toward the child was cruel and
abusive, in that appellant played a role in the murder of the child's father
by appellant's boyfriend and allowed the boyfriend thereafter to live with
her and child. The district court further found that appellant engaged in
the excessive use of alcohol rendering her unable to care for the child. In
particular, appellant suffered from severe addiction to alcohol, made
multiple suicide attempts, and had repeated arrests and incarcerations
relating to assaults on family members and driving under the influence.
Additionally, appellant was convicted in 2011, of allowing a child to be
present during the commission of a controlled substance violation, which
involved the use of her teenage daughter in the sale of a controlled
substance.
We conclude that the district court's decision contains factual
findings that termination of appellant's parental rights is in the child's
best interest. Further, having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude
substantial evidence supports the district court's decision that termination
of appellant's parental rights was warranted. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, C.J.
Pickering
Douglas
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A ,(
cc: Ninth Judicial District Court Dept. 1
Matthew D. Ence, Attorney & Counselor at Law
Kathleen B. Kelly
Douglas County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A