The Court reviewed an appeal based on the termination of an individual’s parental rights. The Court held that “[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.” Relying on previous decisions, the Court confirmed that poverty may not be a factor when it determines “parental fault,” but the Court may consider a parent’s compliance with a case plan. Here, the Court reaffirmed the district court’s decision because it relied on “substantial evidence” that Appellant did not follow her case plan, despite the numerous services offered to her, rather than Appellant’s poverty.
Griffith, Brittni, "In Re: Parental Rights as to R.T., K.G-T., N.H-T. and E.H-T, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 29, 2017)" (2017). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1057.