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