On appeal, appellant contends that a permanent guardianship
with the maternal grandparent was a better alternative to termination of
his parental rights in this case. See NRS 432B.466-.468. Appellant also
contends that the district court's order lacked the necessary factual
findings to support termination and that termination was not warranted
in light of his efforts to visit the children and provide them gifts.
Having considered appellant's arguments along with the
appellate record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the
district court's order to terminate appellant's parental rights. The district
court considered the permanent guardianship option argued by appellant
and concluded that it would not be in the children's best interests, as it
would not provide the stability and permanency that the children need in
this case. The district court's order contains specific factual findings that
appellant had perpetrated acts of domestic violence against the children's
mother and used controlled substances in the presence of the oldest child,
who suffered emotional harm. The court further found that appellant
continued to use controlled substances and engage in acts of domestic
violence, and failed to comply with elements of his case plan aimed at
addressing these issues. The court also found that the children had a very
strong bond with their maternal grandparents, who had provided a loving
and stable home and sought to adopt them. In comparison, the court
found that appellant had a weak bond with the older child, and that his
bond with the younger child was virtually nonexistent. See NRS 128.108.
Appellant contends that his case plan was unworkable and
unattainable because he could not have custody in light of the domestic
violence issues under NRS 125C.230 and NRS 432B.157, which set forth
rebuttable presumptions that it is not in a child's best interest to be in the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A .71"
custody of a parent who has engaged in an act of domestic violence. We
note, however, that appellant had an opportunity to rebut the
presumptions by completing other parts of his case plan including
counseling and other services intended to address his domestic violence
issues, as well as providing support for the children. The district court
found that the appellant failed to make any meaningful efforts to address
his domestic violence issues or provide for the children's monetary support
and emotional and physical well-being. Having reviewed the record, we
conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's findings of
parental fault and that termination of appellant's parental rights was in
the children's best interests. See Matter of N.J., 116 Nev. at 800, 8 P.3d at
132; Matter of D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428-33, 92 P.3d at 1234-37.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
J.
J.
Saitta
cc: Seventh Judicial District Court Dept. 2
David D. Loreman
Attorney General/Las Vegas
White Pine County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A