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

Heading: termination of parental rights; applicable law

Text: NRS 128.110 authorizes the courts to terminate the legal relationship of parent and child upon finding grounds set out in the statute. NRS 128.105 [1] provides that a termination order may be made on the grounds that the termination is in the child's best interest in light of the considerations set forth in this section and NRS 128.106 to 128.108, inclusive. The considerations set forth in the section include abandonment, neglect, unfitness of the parent, child abuse and a rather hazy, probably redundant consideration phrased as [o]nly token efforts by the parent to avoid or prevent abandonment, neglect, unfitness or abuse. Whatever token efforts might mean, we read NRS 128.105 as a whole to mean, that termination of parental rights is to be based on substantial abandonment, neglect, parental unfitness or child abuse. By NRS 128.106 the court is given direction in determining neglect or unfitness of a parent in that the courts are required to consider certain conditions which relate to  suitability as a parent. (Emphasis supplied.) From a reading of the foregoing sections and Chapter 128 as a whole we conclude that there are two kinds of grounds necessary to be considered in termination proceedings. One relates to parental conduct or incapacity [2] and the parent's suitability as a parent; the other relates to the best interest of the child. Putting it another way: there must be jurisdictional grounds for termination  to be found in some specific fault or condition directly related to the parents  and dispositional grounds  to be found by a general evaluation of the child's best interest. We borrow from Ketcham and Babcock [3] to state the general proposition in these terms: The jurisdictional question is whether the biological parent, by behavior, has forfeited all rights in the child. The dispositional question is whether terminating parental rights would be in the best interest of the child. The first question focuses on the action, or inaction, of the natural parent. The second focuses on the placement which will be most beneficial to the child. If it is first decided that the parent has forfeited his rights in the children, then the court moves on to the second question. On the other hand, if it is decided that the biological parent's behavior does not violate minimum standards of parental conduct so as to render the parent unfit, then the analysis ends and termination is denied. In these latter instances, the court never reaches the question of whether the child's future well-being would be better served by placement with the substitute or psychological parent.