Nevada family-law case summaries

This case is about a Nevada family court's role in helping certain immigrant children apply for a special federal immigration status. Federal law allows some children in the United States to apply for what is called Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, which can lead to lawful permanent residency. Before a child can apply, a state court must make three specific findings about the child's situation. One of those findings is that the child cannot reasonably be reunited with one or both parents because of abandonment, abuse, neglect, or something similar. Mariela Lopez gave birth to her son K.M.L. in El Salvador in 2007 and told the father, Serbellon Portillo, both about the pregnancy and about the birth. According to the opinion, Serbellon Portillo never communicated with K.M.L., never sought contact, and never provided support, even though he lives in El Salvador and could have reached Lopez or her family. K.M.L. lived with Lopez's mother in El Salvador until 2017, when his grandmother could no longer care for him and gang violence in his neighborhood became a concern (neighbors had been killed by gang members). K.M.L. then moved to the United States to live with his mother. Lopez asked the Nevada family court for custody and for the SIJ predicate findings. The court gave her custody and agreed it was in K.M.L.'s best interest to stay with her, but declined to find that reunification with the father was "not viable," explaining it could not predict whether the father might someday try to reunite with the child. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the family court used the wrong test. The legal question is not whether future reunification is theoretically possible, but whether it is "viable" - meaning workable or practicable - given the history of the parent-child relationship and the realistic conditions in the child's home country. The Court adopted a framework drawn from out-of-state decisions: family courts should look at the entire history of the relationship between parent and child, the effects forced reunification might have on the child, and the actual conditions on the ground in the home country. The Court also emphasized that an SIJ "abandonment" finding is not the same as terminating parental rights, so the standard for abandonment in this context is broader and less demanding. The Supreme Court left the custody award in place but sent the case back to the family court to reconsider the reunification finding using the correct standard.