in Re: Parental Rights as to H.B.

116 Nev. at 801, 8 P.3d at 133. This court will uphold the district court's termination order if it is supported by substantial evidence. In re D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428, 92 P.3d at 1234. Here, the district court found that parental fault was established based on appellant's token efforts and abandonment of the child between 2007 and 2010. In particular, the district court found that while appellant was initially prevented from contacting the child for a period of time because of a protective order against him, he did obtain legal advice about enforcing his parental rights in 2006, but he failed to pursue those rights until 2011. The court found no credibility in appellant's claim that he was unable to find respondent and the child during the relevant time period. It is the duty of the trier of fact, not an appellate court, to weigh the credibility of witnesses. See Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 103, 86 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2004). The district court further concluded it was in the child's best interest to terminate appellant's parental rights. The court determined that appellant was a stranger to the child, and introducing him as a father figure would be detrimental and disruptive to the stability of the child's life. Having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude that the district court applied the correct legal standard and the court's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. , J. Hardesty poi.4.0„,„ J. J. SUPREME COURT ar Praguirre OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Ninth Judicial District Court Department 1 Daniel L.T. Fahrendorf, Viloria, Oliphant & Oster, LLP Douglas County Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A