Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Parental Rights as to T.L.

Supreme Court of Nevada

December 7, 2017

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO T.L., MINOR CHILD.
v.
WASHOE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Respondent. TONYA M., Appellant,

         Appeal from a district court order terminating appellant's parental rights as to a minor child. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Egan K. Walker, Judge.

         Dismissed.

          Jeremy T. Bosler, Public Defender, and John Reese Petty, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County, for Appellant.

          Christopher J. Hicks, District Attorney, and Jeffrey S. Martin, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

          BEFORE HARDESTY, PARRAGUIRRE and STIGLICH, JJ.

          OPINION

          STIGLICH, J.

         In this appeal we consider a parent's standing to challenge the court's placement decision following the termination of her parental rights where the parent entered into a stipulation agreeing to the termination of her parental rights but reserving the right to participate in a contested pre-termination hearing regarding the child's placement. We conclude that, because the parent no longer has parental rights as to the minor child and does not challenge the termination of those rights, she lacks standing to challenge the district court's placement decision. We must therefore dismiss this appeal.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Respondent Washoe County Department of Social Services (WCDSS) sought to terminate appellant Tonya M.'s parental rights as to her minor child, who had already been removed from Tonya's care and was living with a foster family.[1] WCDSS later found a family that wanted to adopt the minor child, but Tonya wanted the child placed with a relative. Ultimately, WCDSS and Tonya entered into a stipulation wherein Tonya would be allowed to participate in the contested placement hearing, and, following that hearing, she would relinquish her parental rights. The stipulation further provided that if Tonya did not relinquish her parental rights following the contested placement hearing, the district court would enter an order, based on previous testimony, concluding that termination of Tonya's parental rights was in the minor child's best interest. Tonya also stipulated to waive any right to challenge the order terminating her parental rights.

         Tonya participated in the contested placement hearing and testified in support of the child being placed with her relative. In its placement order, however, the district court declined to place the child with Tonya's relative and instead placed the child with the adoptive family.

         Thereafter, Tonya did not relinquish her parental rights, and the district court entered an order terminating her parental rights. This appeal followed.

         DISCUSSION

         In her opening brief, Tonya challenges the district court's placement decision. She asserts that the district court failed to make the written findings of fact this court required in Clark County District Attorney v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 123 Nev. 337, 348, 167 P.3d 922, 929 (2007) (reviewing a placement decision for an abuse of discretion and holding that, "[i]n rendering its placement decision, the district court must make written findings with respect to any credibility issues and with regard to its ultimate conclusion regarding the child's best interest"). She does not challenge the stipulation or the district court order terminating her parental rights. WCDSS argues that Tonya lacks standing to challenge the placement decision because her parental rights have been terminated and, therefore, this case must be dismissed. Because appellate standing is required for this court to have jurisdiction to hear Tonya's argument, we address it first. See Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 (1994) (addressing standing and holding that "this court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal only where the appeal is brought by an aggrieved party" (emphasis omitted)). Standing to challenge the placement order

         Only "[a] party who is aggrieved by an appealable judgment or order" has standing to appeal to this court. NRAP 3A(a); Estate of Hughes v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 96 Nev. 178, 180, 605 P.2d 1149, 1150 (1980). In order to be aggrieved, '"either a personal right or right of property [must be] adversely and substantially affected' by a district court's ruling." Ginsburg, 110 Nev. at 446, 874 P.2d at 734 (quoting Estate of Hughes, 96 Nev. at 180, 605 P.2d at 1150). The grievance must be substantial in that the district court's decision imposes an injustice, or illegal obligation or burden, on the party, or denies the party an equitable or legal right. Webb v. Clark Cty. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.