Opinion ID: 1408398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The jurisdictional aspect of termination proceedings focuses on the fundamental liberty interests of the natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child, and this interest does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of the child to the State. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). The importance of this [liberty] interest cannot easily be overstated. Few consequences of judicial action are so grave as the severance of natural family ties. Even the convict committed to prison and thereby deprived of his physical liberty often retains the love and support of family members. Santosky, Rehnquist dissent, at 787, 102 S.Ct. at 1412. Because of the sacredness of parental rights a higher standard of proof, that of at least clear and convincing evidence, is required before the children can be judicially taken away. Santosky, above. Also, the degree and duration of parental fault of incapacity necessary to establish jurisdictional grounds for termination is greater than that required for other forms of judicial intervention. For example, a judicial determination that a child has been neglected may call for varying degrees of state intervention, ranging from mild reprimand to permanent termination of parental rights. Neglect is a relative term applied to a child who lacks the proper parental care by reason of [parental] fault. NRS 128.014. Although it is difficult to define proper, it is probably true that all parents are at one time or another guilty of neglecting to give their children proper care. To provide a jurisdictional basis for termination, neglect must be serious and persistent and be sufficiently harmful to the child so as to mandate a forfeiture of parental rights. [4] In such a case a parent may be adjudged to be unsuitable to maintain the parental relationship and, therefore, to deserve to lose it. The same principles apply to the jurisdictional ground of unfitness. Unfitness is the other side of the neglect coin. Neglect defines a condition of the child; unfitness describes a condition of the parent. A neglected child is one who does not receive proper care; an unfit parent is one who fails to provide a child with proper care. Again: all parents are guilty of failure to provide proper care on occasion; and a parent does not deserve to forfeit the sacred liberty right of parenthood unless such unfitness is shown to be severe and persistent and such as to render the parent unsuitable [5] to maintain the parental relationship. In like manner, abuse of a child may or may not render a parent unsuitable to be a parent. NRS 128.105 lists as a ground or consideration for termination [r]isks of serious physical, mental or emotional injury to the child if he were returned to, or remains in the home... . Such a risk may be mitigated, and a child may be safely returned to the home; or the risk may be of such magnitude and persistency as to render the parent unsuitable and justify forfeiture of parental rights.