Supreme Court changes guidelines on parental rights

Friday, Aug. 25, 2000 | 11:38 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Reversing a decision it made in 1984, the Nevada Supreme Court Thursday established new guidelines to be followed in cases of termination of parental rights.

The court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Deborah Agosti, said District Court judges must consider both the best interest for the child and the conduct of the parents before terminating the rights to a child.

It said it is abandoning its adherence to the 1984 decision that a court must first find parental fault before it can proceed to consider the best interests of the child.

In reaching its decision, it overturned the finding of Family Court in Las Vegas in the fight between the biological parents and a sister and brother-in-law. Family Court held that there was no clear and convincing evidence the biological parents, identified only as Raja and Hikmet, had abandoned their child for seven years.

Following the previous Supreme Court ruling, Family Court did not reach the second test -- the best interest of the child.

In 1988 a child was born to Hikmet and Raja in Baghdad, Iraq. In early 1990, Raja and the child traveled to Michigan. The mother returned to Iraq and left the child in Michigan with her sister and brother-in-law, Talia and Sam.

Talia and Sam raised the child and in 1997 asked a Nevada court for permission to adopt and terminate parental rights. The biological parents, who had been stranded in Iraq part of the time because of the Persian Gulf War, opposed the petition.

There was conflicting testimony at Family Court hearings about whether the biological parents wanted to abandon their child. But during the seven years, the mother visited the child only twice and the father did not see the child at all. They spoke to the child once on the telephone and never provided any financial support.

Family Court denied a petition to terminate parental rights and rejected a motion for a new trial. The appeal to the Supreme Court followed.

The court noted that the child termination law has been changed several times by the Legislature in order to make sure the best interest of the child was considered first in these cases. And the court admitted that it has continued to follow its 1984 standards "which has resulted in the improper application of the termination statute."

The court said the Legislature was frustrated with the 1984 court's decision, which placed too much emphasis on the conduct of the parents instead of on the best interests of the child.

In setting its new guidelines, the Supreme Court said in addition to considering the best interest of the child the District Court must find at least one factor for parental fault. It said, "The purpose of Nevada's termination statute is not to punish parents, but to protect the welfare of children."