Opinion ID: 2331773
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Express findings of facts are required in parental rights termination proceedings

Text: It is well-settled that termination proceedings implicate a parent's fundamental rights in the care and custody of his or her child. NRS 128.005(1) and (2); Matter of Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422, 426-27, 92 P.3d 1230, 1233 (2004); Matter of Parental Rights as to C.J.M., 118 Nev. 724, 732, 58 P.3d 188, 194 (2002). In order to guard the rights of the parent and the child, the Nevada Legislature has created a statutory scheme intended to assure that parental rights are not erroneously terminated and that the child's needs are protected. NRS 128.005(1) (declaring that the preservation and strengthening of family life is a part of the public policy of this State); NRS 128.005(2)(a) (recognizing that [s]everance of the parent and child relationship is a matter of such importance in order to safeguard the rights of parent and child as to require judicial determination); see generally NRS Chapter 128. To that end, when petitioning the district court to terminate a parent's parental rights, a petitioner must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the child's best interest and that parental fault exists. See NRS 128.090(2); NRS 128.105. This court will uphold the district court's termination order when it is supported by substantial evidence. Matter of Parental Rights as to A.J.G., 122 Nev. 1418, 1423, 148 P.3d 759, 763 (2006). Based on the interests at stake in these types of proceedings, a petitioner has a high burden to establish that termination is warrantedclear and convincing evidence. NRS 128.090(2); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (explaining that courts are required to apply a heightened clear and convincing standard of proof in termination of parental rights cases); Matter as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. at 428, 92 P.3d at 1234 (recognizing that Nevada applies a clear and convincing standard of proof in termination proceedings). This standard of proof underscores the importance of the district court's fair and independent fact-finding. Thus, it is incumbent upon the district court in termination proceedings to provide a decision, whether in writing or orally on the record, that includes all the necessary factual findings for the benefit of the parties and this court's proper appellate review because without specific findings, this court cannot determine whether the district court's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. NRS 128.105(1) and (2) (requiring a finding of best interest and parental fault); NRCP 52(a) (stating that when rendering a decision [i]n all actions tried upon the facts without a jury[,] ... the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law); Holt v. Regional Trustee Services Corp., 127 Nev. ___, 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); see also In re Edward B., 210 W.Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620, 632-33 (2001) (holding that a lower court's failure to comply with statutes and rules of procedure when issuing a final order impedes a proper appellate review); Matter of T.R.M., 100 Wis.2d 681, 303 N.W.2d 581, 583-84 (1981) (explaining that adequate findings are required to facilitate review by an appellate court). In this case, the district court deferred ruling on the termination petition until it received the parties' written closing arguments, and thus, the court did not make any oral findings on the record. The subsequent written termination order does not reference any specific facts or evidence presented by the parties during the two-day bench trial; the order simply recites the statutory grounds required to terminate a parent's parental rights, and such statements do not constitute sufficient findings because they do not explain, based on the record evidence, why the district court found that the statutory grounds for termination existed. See Perez v. Dept. of Children & Family Serv., 384 Ill.App.3d 770, 323 Ill.Dec. 680, 894 N.E.2d 447, 451 (2008) (Findings of fact are determinations from the evidence of a case ... concerning facts averred by one party and denied by another. (internal quotation and citation omitted)); Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Brown, 86 S.W.3d 353, 356-57 (Tex. App.2002) (stating that factual findings constitute ultimate determinations concerning what transpired during the proceedings and provide answer[s] to any other specific inquiry necessary to establish conduct or the existence or nonexistence of a relevant matter). Because the district court failed to identify, in writing or on the record, the factual bases that support its termination order, we cannot determine whether substantial evidence supports the district court's decision, and thus, we reverse the district court's order terminating appellant's parental rights and remand this case to the district court to enter its findings. [2] See Robison v. Robison, 100 Nev. 668, 673, 691 P.2d 451, 455 (1984) (remanding the case to the lower court because the court's findings failed to indicate the factual basis for its final conclusions). We concur: HARDESTY and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.