Distinct Scrutiny Standard for Privately Initiated Termination of Parental Rights in Nevada

Introduction

In re Parental Rights as to R.A.S., 141 Nev. Advance Opinion 20 (Apr. 24, 2025), addresses a privately initiated petition to terminate maternal parental rights in Elko County. Appellant Shianna G. and Respondent Logan S. share a son, R.A.S., born in 2018. After Shianna entered substance‐abuse treatment in late 2019, Logan took physical custody of the child. Over the next three years, Shianna lost contact with Logan and R.A.S., in part due to Logan’s change of residence, phone number, and social-media settings. In June 2023, Logan petitioned to terminate Shianna’s parental rights. The Fourth Judicial District Court granted the petition on four grounds of parental fault—abandonment, neglect, unfitness, and token efforts—and held termination served R.A.S.’s best interests. Shianna appealed.

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It clarified that privately initiated termination petitions differ fundamentally from those brought by the State and require heightened care in evaluating parental fault. Finding no substantial evidence to support any fault ground, the Court vacated the order and instructed district courts to apply careful, fact-driven scrutiny in private termination proceedings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Nevada, in an opinion by Justice Stiglich, held:

The statutes governing termination (NRS Chapter 128) do not distinguish between state- and privately initiated petitions, but the Court will.
Private petitions lack the protective framework—case plans, services, reunification efforts—typical of state-driven child-welfare actions.
District courts must recognize differences in motivation, background, and best-interest factors when a non-state party seeks termination.
Reviewing the record, the Court found no substantial evidence supporting any parental-fault finding:

Abandonment: the mother made repeated efforts to locate and contact her child, rebutting the statutory presumption.
Neglect & Unfitness: while the child was in the father’s care, there was no showing that the mother’s earlier conduct endangered him or prevented proper care.
Token Efforts: the mother’s attempts to communicate exceeded mere “token” efforts, given the father’s interference.

Because no ground of parental fault was proved by clear and convincing evidence, the termination order was reversed without reaching the best-interest analysis.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court drew on foundational Nevada authorities and statutory provisions:

Drury v. Lang, 105 Nev. 430 (1989): Parental termination is “tantamount to a Civil Death Penalty,” underscoring the gravity of the remedy.
NRS 128.105 & NRS 128.012: Governs parental fault grounds—abandonment, neglect, unfitness, token efforts—and the statutory presumption of abandonment after six months without support or communication.
Chapman v. Chapman, 96 Nev. 290 (1980): Neglect must relate to a child in the parent’s custody; when custody is entrusted to another who provides proper care, neglect cannot stand.
Greeson v. Barnes, 111 Nev. 1198 (1995): A parent’s contest of termination signals the absence of a “settled purpose” to surrender parental rights, weighing against abandonment.
In re Parental Rights as to D.R.H., 120 Nev. 422 (2004), and related decisions: Illustrate the reunification-first model in state-initiated cases, with case plans and services before termination.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two stages:

Distinction between Petition Types. Although NRS Chapter 128 applies to all termination actions, the Court recognized that:
- State-initiated petitions arise from findings that a child is in need of protection. They involve an agency-driven process with reunification services, case plans, and statutory requirements to make “reasonable efforts” to preserve the family (NRS 432B.393).
- Privately initiated petitions lack these safeguards. A private petitioner need not show the child’s need for protection, and the court may not have an existing record of services or a reunification attempt.
- Best-interest analyses differ: State petitions focus on safety and remedial steps, whereas private petitions often concern maintaining two parental bonds, adoption prospects, or custodial stability.
Application to the Facts. Reviewing each fault ground under the “clear and convincing” standard:
- Abandonment: NRS 128.012 presumes abandonment after six months without support or communication. Yet the mother’s documented attempts—visiting the father’s former home, calling old numbers, contacting relatives, using social media—rebutted the presumption. Logan’s relocation and blocking her communications prevented further contact; she could not be faulted for circumstances beyond her control.
- Neglect & Unfitness: Citing Chapman, the Court held that neglect must occur in the parent’s custody; R.A.S. never lacked care under Logan’s roof. Unfitness likewise hinges on current inability to provide “proper care, guidance, and support,” not merely past or remediated conduct.
- Token Efforts: Token efforts require only minimal attempts to support or communicate. Here, the mother’s proactive—but frustrated—communications exceeded token gestures.

3. Impact

In its opinion, the Court sent clear signals for future private termination cases:

District courts must explicitly differentiate private petitions from state-driven actions and adjust their scrutiny accordingly.
Private petitioners bear the same “clear and convincing” burden, but courts should be alert to the absence of state-provided services, case plans, and protective oversight.
Findings of parental fault must rest on robust evidence of current misconduct or inability, not on procedural delays, the parent’s incarceration, or interference by the custodial parent.
Orders terminating parental rights must delineate the precise factual basis for each fault ground to allow meaningful appellate review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Clear and Convincing Evidence: A standard above “preponderance” but below “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It requires a high probability that the claim is true.
Abandonment (NRS 128.012): A parent’s “settled purpose” to relinquish all rights. Silence or non-support for six months creates a rebuttable presumption, which can be overcome by proof of genuine efforts to maintain contact.
Neglect vs. Unfitness: Neglect examines whether a parent fails to supply basic needs while in custody. Unfitness focuses on a parent’s pervasive inability—by “fault, habit, or conduct”—to provide proper care.
Token Efforts: Minimal gestures toward support or communication, insufficient to defeat abandonment. More than a token effort requires genuine, consistent attempts, even if frustrated by others.
Best-Interest Analysis: The court’s mandate to assess a child’s emotional, physical, and developmental needs when deciding whether to sever parental ties.

Conclusion

In re Parental Rights as to R.A.S. establishes a new benchmark for privately initiated termination proceedings. It emphasizes:

Recognition of the unique procedural and evidentiary landscape in private petitions.
Strict adherence to “clear and convincing” proof of current parental fault.
Requirement that district courts articulate clear findings for each fault ground.
A caution against penalizing parents for factors beyond their control—such as custodial interference—when evaluating abandonment, neglect, or token efforts.

This decision safeguards the fundamental liberty interest inherent in parental rights and directs Nevada’s trial courts to apply disciplined, transparent analysis in every private termination action.