SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

respondent from proving parental unfitness if she asserted that ground for 

termination. See NRS 128.105(2)(c). At the termination hearing, 

respondent presented evidence of appellant's parental unfitness, 

independently of any finding in the guardianship matter. Additionally, 

because the guardianship matter was so closely related to the termination 

case and was heard by the same judge, we conclude that judicial notice 

was proper. See Occhiuto v. Occhiuto, 97 Nev. 143, 145, 625 P.2d 568, 569 

(1981) (allowing judicial notice of a prior proceeding where the cases are 

closely related). 

Appellant also contends that the district court's parental 

termination order contains only a summary statement that the child's best 

interest is served by termination, but does not contain any specific factual 

findings regarding the child's best interest. Appellant argues that 

termination is not in the child's best interest because she has already lost 

her father and terminating her relationship with her mother will likely 

erode the child's relationship with her remaining natural family members. 

In terminating parental rights, the district court must find by 

clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best 

interest and that at least one factor of parental fault exists. NRS 128.105; 

Matter of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 

132-33 (2000). The district court's decision, in either the written order or 

oral pronouncement, cannot merely recite the statutory grounds for 

termination, but must contain specific factual findings to support the 

decision. In re Parental Rights as to C.C.A., 128 Nev. , 273 P.3d 

852, 854 (2012). This court will uphold the district court's termination 

order if it is supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Parental Rights 

as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004). 

In the written order, the district court found that the child's 

best interest can only be served by terminating appellant's parental 

2 
, C.J. 

Saitta 

3 

Pickering 

Douglas 

rights. The district court stated that the child "has, at the hands of her 

mother, had a childhood which no human should have." The district court 

specifically found that appellant's conduct toward the child was cruel and 

abusive, in that appellant played a role in the murder of the child's father 

by appellant's boyfriend and allowed the boyfriend thereafter to live with 

her and child. The district court further found that appellant engaged in 

the excessive use of alcohol rendering her unable to care for the child. In 

particular, appellant suffered from severe addiction to alcohol, made 

multiple suicide attempts, and had repeated arrests and incarcerations 

relating to assaults on family members and driving under the influence. 

Additionally, appellant was convicted in 2011, of allowing a child to be 

present during the commission of a controlled substance violation, which 

involved the use of her teenage daughter in the sale of a controlled 

substance. 

We conclude that the district court's decision contains factual 

findings that termination of appellant's parental rights is in the child's 

best interest. Further, having reviewed the appellate record, we conclude 

substantial evidence supports the district court's decision that termination 

of appellant's parental rights was warranted. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A ,( 
cc: Ninth Judicial District Court Dept. 1 

Matthew D. Ence, Attorney & Counselor at Law 

Kathleen B. Kelly 

Douglas County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4