IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL No. 67880
RIGHTS AS TO C.A.T., AND C.P.T.,
MINORS,
ALICIA V.K., A/K/A ALICIA V.T., FILED
Appellant,
vs. JAN 15 2016
STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT TRACE K. LINDEMAN
, SPREME COURT
CLERK?"
OF FAMILY SERVICES; C.A.T.; AND BY 0 •
DEPUTY CLERK
C.P.T.,
Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order terminating
appellant's parental rights. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court
Division, Clark County; Cynthia N. Giuliani, Judge.
At the hearing to terminate appellant's parental rights as to
her two children appellant did not contest the termination and instead
agreed to relinquish her parental rights in order to facilitate an open
adoption. She did not complete the relinquishment, however, and
subsequently her parental rights were terminated. "A party petitioning to
terminate parental rights must establish by clear and convincing evidence
that (1) termination is in the child's best interest, and (2) parental fault
exists." In re Parental Rights as to A.L., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 91, 337 P.3d
758, 761 (2014) (internal quotation omitted). This court reviews district
court factual findings for substantial evidence, and reviews questions of
law de novo. Id.
Appellant first argues that there is no clear and convincing
evidence of parental fault and that the district court order merely recited
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e94)
6 -a
the statutory language without identifying any findings specific to
appellant's particular circumstances. Although a court must make
particularized findings supporting its decision in a termination
proceeding, these may be made "in writing or orally on the record." In re
Parental Rights as to C.C.A., 128 Nev. 166, 169, 273 P.3d 852, 854 (2012);
see Holt v. Reg'l Tr. Servs, Corp., 127 Nev. 886, 895, 266 P.3d 602, 608
(2011) (recognizing that oral pronouncements on the record that are
consistent with a judgment may be used by the appellate court to construe
the judgment). Here, the district court made adequate oral findings on the
record, and these findings are supported by substantial evidence, and
thus, reversal is not warranted on this issue. See C.C.A., 128 Nev. at 169,
273 P.3d at 854; see also A.L., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 91, 337 P.3d at 761.
Appellant next argues that she did not voluntarily agree to
relinquish her parental rights and forgo a fully contested termination
hearing. Appellant's assertion that the possibility of losing her children
was improperly used to pressure her to make an involuntary agreement is
belied by the record. In fact, the record indicates that the district court
canvassed appellant as to her understanding and intent to forgo a full trial
and to pursue relinquishing her parental rights instead. See Grisham v.
Grisham, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 60, 289 P.3d 230, 233 (2012); Grenz v. Grenz,
78 Nev. 394, 398-99, 374 P.2d 891, 894-95 (1962) (enforcing a divorce
agreement reached by the parties in chambers when the judge recited the
agreement on the record and neither party objected to the terms of the
agreement as stated by the district court).
Finally, appellant has filed a motion for the appointment of
counsel on appeal. NRS 128.100(2) allows this court to appoint an
indigent parent counsel in a parental termination proceeding, however,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A elikp.
€5.711
doing so is discretionary. Because the issues raised in this appeal do not
involve particularly complex legal theories or arguments, due process does
not mandate that counsel be appointed, and we decline to appoint counsel
and deny appellant's motion. In re Parental Rights as to N.D.O., 121 Nev.
379, 382-83, 115 P.3d 223, 225 (2005) (explaining that NRS 128.100(2)
"contemplates a case-by-case determination of whether due process
demands the appointment of counsel").
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1
Hardes'
Saitta
0424 tut J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Cynthia N. Giuliani, District Judge, Family Court Division
Alicia V.K.
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.
Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Anne R. Traum
Eighth District Court Clerk
'To the extent that appellant's arguments have not been expressly
addressed in this order, we conclude that those arguments lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A