In Re: Parental Rights as to C.M., N.M., and O.M.

 that parental fault exists, which can include, but is not limited to, failure
of parental adjustment or token efforts to avoid being an unfit parent or to
eliminate the risk of serious physical, mental, or emotional injury to the
child. Id. at 795-96, 8 P.3d at 129-30; see also NRS 128.105(2)(d), (f).
When a child has been placed outside of his or her home for 14 of any 20
consecutive months, it is presumed that the parent has demonstrated only
token efforts to care for the child and that the child's best interest would
be served by termination. NRS 128.109(1)(a), (2). Further, a parent's
failure to substantially comply with the reunification plan within six
months constitutes evidence of a parent's failure to adjust. NRS
128.109(1)(b). The parent may rebut these presumptions by a
preponderance of evidence. In re J.D.N., 128 Nev. 283 P.3d 842,

849 (2012).
On appeal, appellant contends that he presented evidence to
rebut the presumptions of NRS 128.109 and that respondent failed to
prove token efforts and a failure of parental adjustment. Specifically,
appellant argues that he completed his required domestic violence and
parenting courses and that any delay was due to financial barriers, that
he accepted his role in the abuse and neglect that led to his children being
removed from his custody, and that he understood that his relationship
with the children's mother was not in the children's best interests.
Appellant further contends that his regular visitation with the children
established that reunification was in the children's best interests under
NRS 128.107(3)(b). Respondent argues that it proved application of the
statutory presumptions of best interest and token efforts and that
appellant failed to rebut the presumptions.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(D) 1947A 4W44
 Having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we
conclude that appellant's contentions lack merit. The district court found
that the children suffered from severe neglect and that appellant failed to
act. The district court also found that appellant was unable to accept
responsibility for several acts of domestic violence. The goals of
appellant's case plan were that appellant would be able to meet the
children's needs, develop a healthy bond with the children, and ensure
that domestic violence no longer occurred. Further, although appellant
substantially completed his courses nearly two years after he entered his
case plan, the district court expressed concern that the counseling did not
adequately address the domestic violence issues and the ultimate
objectives of the case plan. Completion of a case plan is not sufficient to
rebut the presumptions when the objectives of the case plan are not met.
See In re Parental Rights as to K.D.L, 118 Nev. 737, 746-48 & n.21, 58
P.3d, 181, 187-88 & n.21 (2002) (noting that appellant's failure to achieve
the underlying goals of his case plan was evidence of parental unfitness
and failure of parental adjustment).
Additionally, although appellant argues that financial
constraints precluded him from completing his case plan in a timely
manner, the district court found that his case worker made significant
efforts to assist appellant in completing his case plan, yet despite this
assistance, appellant did not substantially comply with his case plan until
more than 20 months after the plan was put in place. A failure to
significantly complete a case plan within six months also serves as
evidence of parental fault through a failure of parental adjustment. See

NRS 128.105(2)(d); NRS 128.109(1)(b). Accordingly, we conclude that

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 194,A 4cg
 substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that appellant
failed to rebut the presumptions under NRS 128.109.
Appellant also argues that his due process rights were violated
because he did not have proper notice that a failure to complete his case
plan in a timely manner would lead to a termination of his parental rights.
Although appellant did not raise this issue below, thereby waiving the
issue on appeal, see Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355, 1363-64, 929 P.2d 916,

921 (1996), this court may reach constitutional issues sua sponte. In re

Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 166 n.24, 87 P.3d 521, 526 n.
24 (2004). At the hearing where appellant pleaded no contest to the abuse
and neglect petition, the hearing master specifically asked appellant
whether he understood that as a part of the plea appellant would be
subject to all court orders including a case plan and that a failure to
complete the case plan in a timely manner may subject appellant to a
petition to terminate his parental rights. Appellant responded
affirmatively. Thus, appellant's contention is without merit.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district
court's decision to terminate appellant's parental rights is supported by
substantial evidence. Thus, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

'" 'lie ,J.
Pickering

j. J.
Parraguirre Saitta

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
4
(0) 1947A a4 4
 cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division
Christopher R. Tilman
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 194Th me>