in Re: Parental Rights as to Nivela

adjustment may also be presumed where the parent substantially fails to comply with a case plan for reunification within six months. NRS 128.109(1)(b). Once established, these presumptions may be rebutted by the parent. Matter of Parental Rights as to J.L.N., 118 Nev. 621, 625-26, 55 P.3d 955, 958 (2002). 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. at 428, 92 P.3d at 1234. In terminating appellant's parental rights in this case, the district court found that termination was in the children's best interests and that parental fault was established based on parental unfitness, failure to make parental adjustments, and only token efforts. NRS 128.105. The court further found that the presumptions under NRS 128.109 applied and were not overcome by appellant. Having considered the parties' arguments on appeal and the appellate record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's findings that the statutory presumptions applied, that appellant failed to overcome the presumptions, that there was clear and convincing evidence of parental fault, and that termination of appellant's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The record shows that at the time of the termination trial the children had been out of the home for over two years, and appellant had failed to substantially complete her case plan within that same period. In particular, while appellant had made efforts to comply with her case plan and had maintained visitation with the children, she failed to achieve the necessary objective of developing a protective capacity and being able to provide a safe environment for them. The district court found that the children's need for stability and permanency precluded allowing appellant SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A additional time to address these safety concerns. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's decision that termination was warranted. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. Douglas J. Saitta cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Department C Christopher R. Tilman Mills & Mills Law Offices of Romeo R. Perez, P.C. Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A