Nevada family-law case summaries

This case involves a father, Miguel E.C., and his five minor children. In March 2025, the State of Nevada filed a petition claiming the children needed protection. According to the petition, Miguel made numerous allegations - later found to be false - that the children had been sexually abused by their mother and/or her relatives. The petition said these false claims caused the children to undergo medical examinations and to take part in investigations of their mother and relatives, that Miguel appeared to have coached the children to make the false claims, and that Miguel may have a mental health condition driving his behavior. The children were removed from Miguel's care and placed with their mother. The district court held an evidentiary hearing (a court session where witnesses testify and evidence is presented). Miguel attended and testified. Other witnesses, including detectives who investigated the sexual-abuse allegations, also testified, and documents were introduced. Afterward, the court found that Miguel had abused and neglected the children by causing them mental injury that was not accidental. The court concluded that Miguel coached and coerced the children into making false abuse allegations as a way to try to gain custody, and that this caused the children emotional harm. The court then gave the mother sole custody, ended the agency's custody, gave Miguel supervised parenting time, said any future custody changes would have to go through a regular custody court, and closed the case. On appeal, Miguel argued three main things: that the district court's findings were wrong because the State presented false evidence, that his due process rights were violated because the court made him rush through his testimony, and that the judge was biased against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed. A key reason was a record problem: Miguel filed a certificate stating he was not requesting transcripts of the hearing, so the appeals court never received a written record of what was said. Under Nevada rules, when an appellant does not provide the necessary transcript, the appeals court assumes the missing transcript supports the lower court's decision. Because of that, the court could not meaningfully review Miguel's arguments about the evidence, and it noted that appeals courts do not re-weigh a trial court's decisions about which witnesses to believe. On due process, the court found Miguel had received notice of the hearing, appeared with his lawyer, and testified - and again, without a transcript, the court presumed the record supported how the trial judge handled the time for testimony. On bias, the court found Miguel had not shown the judge relied on outside information or displayed the kind of deep-seated hostility that would make a fair decision impossible. The opinion also addressed a jurisdictional objection from the State. The State argued the appeal should be dismissed because the order with the factual findings was not a final, appealable order. The court rejected that, explaining that the order placing the children with their mother and closing the case resolved everything and was therefore a final appealable order, which also allowed the court to review earlier interlocutory (non-final) decisions.

This case is about whether a child-welfare agency and the children themselves can appeal when a juvenile court dismisses a petition asking the court to protect the children from a parent. The petition here was filed under NRS Chapter 432B, the Nevada law that governs child-protection proceedings. After a hearing, the juvenile court found the abuse and neglect allegations against the father were not proven and threw the case out. CCDFS and the children tried to appeal that dismissal. The problem was a 2012 Nevada Supreme Court decision called In re A.B., which had said that orders coming out of juvenile proceedings involving child custody are not appealable - meaning the only way to challenge them in the Supreme Court was to file a writ of mandamus (a separate, more limited type of court request). The Supreme Court flagged this issue on its own and asked the parties to explain why the appeal should not be tossed out. The Supreme Court took a fresh look at the question and decided that In re A.B. got it wrong on this point. The court explained that Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 3A(b)(1) allows appeals from a "final judgment" entered by a district court, and that an order completely dismissing a child-protection case fits that definition because it ends the case and leaves nothing further for the court to decide. A juvenile court is part of the district court, so its final orders qualify. The father argued that a different rule, NRAP 3A(b)(7), which addresses appeals from certain child-custody orders that do not arise in juvenile court, blocks appeals from juvenile-court custody orders. The court rejected that reading. NRAP 3A(b)(7) by its terms simply does not cover juvenile-court custody orders; it does not strip away the appeal right that NRAP 3A(b)(1) provides for final judgments. The court therefore overruled In re A.B. in part - specifically, the part holding that all child-custody orders arising from juvenile proceedings are unappealable. The court was careful to limit its ruling: only orders that finally resolve NRS Chapter 432B proceedings are appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(1). Interlocutory (mid-case) child-custody orders entered in those proceedings are still not appealable under this rule. Because the order in this case completely ended the child-protection proceedings, it is a final judgment, and the appeal may go forward. The court gave the appellants 60 days to file their opening brief.

Two people, Antwann B. and Jessica B., asked the Court of Appeals of Nevada to step in and stop or override what a lower court (the family division of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County) was doing in a case involving child welfare under NRS Chapter 432B, which governs the protection of children from abuse and neglect. They filed their request without a lawyer, representing themselves. The type of relief they sought is called an "extraordinary writ" - specifically a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. A writ of mandamus is a court order forcing a lower court or official to perform a duty the law requires, or to correct an arbitrary or capricious use of discretion. A writ of prohibition is an order stopping a lower court from acting beyond, or without, its jurisdiction (its legal authority to hear the case). The Court of Appeals explained that deciding whether to even consider this kind of petition is entirely within its own discretion, and that the people asking for the writ carry the burden of showing that such relief is justified. After reviewing the petition and the documents submitted with it, the court concluded that the petitioners had not shown that extraordinary relief was warranted, and it denied the petition. Because the court denied the petition, it also denied as moot (no longer requiring a decision) an emergency motion the petitioners had filed on October 24, 2025.

This case involves a baby, A.R., who was removed from her parents in 2022 because of neglect and abuse. The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) initially placed her with her paternal aunt, Mary. Over time, A.R. also began spending weekends with her maternal grandmother, Ericka. Both relatives loved A.R., wanted to adopt her, and were considered fit caregivers. After the parents' rights were terminated by the court, the district court had to decide where A.R. should live permanently. Both the aunt and the grandmother were good options, and the district court found them "equally situated" in most respects. To break the tie, the court considered DFS's recommendation. DFS preferred the aunt's home because A.R. had developed a close, sibling-like bond with her cousin (the aunt's child), and DFS believed keeping that bond intact was best for A.R. The court placed A.R. with the aunt for adoption, while preserving the grandmother's role through a Post Adoptive Contact Agreement giving her alternating weekend visits and two weeks of summer vacation each year. The grandmother asked the Nevada Supreme Court to step in through a writ of mandamus - a court order directing a lower court to perform a duty required by law. She argued the district court placed too much weight on DFS's recommendation, did not make sufficient findings, did not hear enough evidence, and improperly favored a "nuclear family" structure. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments and denied the petition. It explained that, after parental rights are terminated, a different statute (NRS 128.110) governs placement, and that statute gives the agency holding the child's custody discretion in deciding placement. The district court is not bound by the agency's preference, but it must consider it as part of figuring out what is in the child's best interest, which always remains the paramount concern. Here, the district court did exactly that: it acknowledged it could override DFS, but found DFS's reasoning - protecting A.R.'s bond with her cousin - persuasive. The Supreme Court also concluded that the district court's findings were sufficient and that its decision was not based on a generic preference for "traditional" families but on the specific facts of A.R.'s relationships. Some of the grandmother's other arguments were treated as waived because she did not raise them in the district court.

This case arises from a child-welfare proceeding in Clark County. After 19-month-old K.T. died of head trauma and a leg fracture, the mother's boyfriend was arrested and charged with murder and child abuse. The mother, Tautiana Bellamy, told investigators she had witnessed the boyfriend abuse K.T. but did not protect the child. Concerned about Bellamy's ability to protect her surviving 4-year-old daughter, A.T., DFS took protective custody of A.T. and the District Attorney filed a petition alleging A.T. was an abused or neglected child. When the case came before the district court, Bellamy entered a "no-contest" plea to the petition. A no-contest plea means the person does not admit the allegations are true but agrees not to fight them; the court then proceeds as if the allegations were admitted. The District Attorney objected, saying Nevada's child-welfare statute (NRS 432B.530) only allows a parent to either admit or deny the allegations, not plead no contest, unless the prosecutor agrees as part of a negotiation. The district judge accepted the plea anyway, made clear there was no deal attached to it (the District Attorney was not giving up the right to use Bellamy's statements in any future criminal case), and treated the plea as the equivalent of an admission for the dependency case. DFS, the District Attorney, and the child asked the Nevada Supreme Court to step in by writ - an extraordinary order used when there is no ordinary appeal available. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because rulings under NRS Chapter 432B are not appealable, and the question of whether courts may accept no-contest pleas in these cases is an important legal issue. A majority of the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners and denied the writ. The majority concluded that NRS 432B.530 says the court must give parties an "opportunity to admit or deny" the allegations, but does not strictly limit them to only those two responses. The majority found the statute ambiguous and looked to its purpose. Because Nevada's child-protection laws are designed to resolve cases quickly - delays harm children waiting for permanency - the majority held that allowing a no-contest plea serves that goal. A no-contest plea avoids a contested evidentiary hearing, lets DFS move forward with services and a reunification plan, and lets a parent avoid admitting to potentially criminal conduct (which could implicate the parent's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination). The majority also rejected the argument that accepting the plea over the prosecutor's objection violated separation of powers. Charging decisions and plea negotiations belong to the executive branch, but here the district court was not negotiating, not dropping charges, and not giving Bellamy any assurances about a future criminal case. Bellamy pleaded no contest to the entire petition as filed. Three justices dissented. They read the statute as plainly limiting parents to admitting or denying the allegations - nothing more - and would have granted the writ.

This case asks what happens to a Nevada parent's child-custody rights when she once pleaded guilty to felony child abuse but was later allowed to withdraw that guilty plea after completing probation. Yumila Cardenas-Garcia's six-year-old child, Z.K., was removed from her home by Clark County Department of Family Services after the home was found to be unlivable. In a separate criminal case, Cardenas-Garcia pleaded guilty to felony child abuse, neglect, or endangerment under NRS 200.508, and a judgment of conviction was entered. Her plea agreement was a so-called "drop-down" agreement: if she successfully completed probation, she could withdraw the felony plea and instead plead guilty to a misdemeanor (contributing to the delinquency of a minor). She did complete probation, and the felony plea was withdrawn. A Nevada statute, NRS 432B.555, says that if a court finds a parent has "ever been convicted" of felony child abuse, the court cannot return the child to that parent unless the parent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the child will not suffer physical or psychological harm from being returned. The district court held a hearing while Cardenas-Garcia still had the felony conviction on her record, found she had not met that high burden, and ruled the presumption against reunification applied. After her felony plea was withdrawn, she went back to the district court and asked it to find the statute no longer applied to her. The district court still found she had not rebutted the presumption. Cardenas-Garcia then asked the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus - an order from a higher court directing a lower court to do something it is legally required to do. She argued that because her felony conviction had been voided, she should not be treated as ever having been convicted, and the statute's higher burden should not apply. The Supreme Court disagreed and denied the writ. Focusing on the word "ever" in the statute, the majority held that NRS 432B.555 applies to anyone who at any point had a felony child-abuse conviction entered against them, even if that conviction is later withdrawn or voided. The court reasoned that the Legislature's choice of "ever" directs courts to look back at any conviction that was at any point on the record, regardless of its current legal status. The court emphasized, however, that the presumption is not a permanent bar. A parent can keep trying to rebut it as circumstances change, and district courts should "freely grant leave" to present new evidence when a party shows a significant change in circumstances - such as Cardenas-Garcia's successful completion of probation. Justice Bell dissented. She would have held that under existing Nevada precedent, a withdrawn guilty plea is treated as if it never existed, so Cardenas-Garcia legally has no felony conviction at all and the statute should not apply.

This case concerns a baby boy, D.M.F., who was born exposed to opiates and amphetamines. His parents admitted to methamphetamine use during pregnancy, so they agreed that the paternal grandmother, Yalonda, would care for the twins (D.M.F. and his brother A.F.) as a temporary guardian while they sought drug treatment. CPS investigated, allowed the babies to go home with Yalonda, and approved her as caregiver. About three months later, A.F. died from positional asphyxia after the parents fell asleep with him on a bed. Police and CPS investigated and found no abuse or neglect; the death was ruled a tragic accident. CPS did, however, find that the parents had relapsed on methamphetamine. Yalonda then promised to seek a formal court guardianship over the surviving twin, D.M.F., and CPS once again approved her as caregiver. About a month after A.F.'s death, Yalonda asked the district court to be appointed D.M.F.'s legal guardian. The court granted that petition without objection. Six months later, the district court received an ex parte communication (a behind-the-scenes message) from another judge who had learned of A.F.'s death from CPS records in a separate case. The court appointed an investigator and held a hearing about whether Yalonda had misrepresented things in her petition by not telling the court about A.F.'s death. After the hearing, the court issued an order removing Yalonda as guardian and terminating the guardianship altogether, and referred the matter to CPS. D.M.F., through counsel, appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a district court does have power, on its own initiative, to remove a guardian and end a guardianship - it does not need someone to file a formal petition first. But the court must follow constitutional and statutory rules. The Supreme Court ruled the district court violated D.M.F.'s due process rights. Due process means a person must get fair notice and a real chance to be heard before the government takes away an important interest. Here, none of the court's orders clearly told D.M.F., Yalonda, or the parents that the court was considering the major step of removing the guardian and ending the guardianship. The investigator's report contained no recommendations, the hearing took no sworn testimony, and the participants were never clearly told what was on the table. The Supreme Court also held the district court abused its discretion. To remove a guardian, the court must find one of the conditions listed in NRS 159A.185(1) and then conduct a "best interests of the child" analysis using the factors in NRS 159A.186(2). To terminate a guardianship, the court must make specific findings under NSRG 10(A) about the child's health, whether a guardianship is still needed, less restrictive alternatives, and best interests. The district court did none of these things. It also relied on factual mistakes - for example, finding A.F. died "only days" before the petition was filed when in reality it was a month before, and finding A.F. died "within a few days" of Yalonda becoming temporary guardian when she had cared for the twins for three months without incident. On the CPS issue, the Supreme Court held the district court did not exceed its authority. Although the district court expressed opinions about what CPS should do, the actual order simply referred the matter to CPS for "action as they deem fit," and that was permissible. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered the lower court to reinstate Yalonda as guardian (if she is willing and able). If the district court still wants to consider removal or termination, it must give clear notice, hold a full hearing, and make the findings the statutes require.

This case asks who is allowed to run the trial when the State seeks to permanently sever a parent's legal relationship with her child. In the Eighth Judicial District (Clark County), such trials had often been conducted by a "hearing master" - a court-appointed lawyer (not a judge) who hears evidence, makes findings, and recommends a result to a district judge, who then reviews the record and makes the final decision. The Nevada Supreme Court held that this two-step approach is not allowed for termination of parental rights (TPR) trials. A district judge - not a hearing master - must preside over the trial in the first instance. The underlying facts: Tahja L. was a teenager when she brought her six-month-old daughter L.L.S. to a Department of Family Services (DFS) office, hoping to place her temporarily while Tahja finished high school. DFS instead filed a neglect petition, placed L.L.S. in foster care, and eventually moved to terminate Tahja's parental rights. The case was assigned to a hearing master. L.L.S.'s lawyer objected, arguing that a district judge should hear the trial; Tahja did not join that objection. The juvenile court overruled the objection. After the originally assigned master became a district judge, a different hearing master conducted the trial, recommended termination, and the district judge - after watching the entire video of the trial - terminated Tahja's parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed. It explained that under Nevada law, TPR proceedings under NRS Chapter 432B must be conducted by a "court," and although the statutes define "court" to include a hearing master under certain circumstances, that inclusion only works if the master's role is consistent with the Nevada Constitution. The court held that having a master preside over a TPR trial violates a parent's right to procedural due process, because the right at stake - the permanent loss of one's child - is so serious that the parent must present her case directly to the judge who will decide it, not to an intermediary whose findings are then reviewed from a recording. The court applied the three-part federal test from Mathews v. Eldridge, weighing (1) the parent's interest, (2) the risk that the procedure used will produce a wrong result, and (3) the government's interest in efficiency. The court described a parent's interest in keeping her child as among the strongest interests the law recognizes, comparing termination to a "civil death penalty." It found that having a master, rather than the judge, see witnesses face-to-face increases the risk of error, and that the State's efficiency interests are not significantly served, because the district judge still has to review the entire record. The court also pointed to recent legislative history in which the Eighth Judicial District's Chief Judge told lawmakers the district was specifically seeking new judges to "eliminate the use of hearing masters" in dependency cases. The court therefore reversed the termination order and sent the case back for a new TPR trial before a district judge. Three justices dissented.

This case involves the State's effort to permanently end a father's legal relationship with his young son. Marcus and the child's mother, Dana, were both incarcerated when the child, T.M.R., was an infant. Marcus had pleaded guilty to felony coercion after an incident in which he hit Dana's 100-year-old great-grandmother, Gladys, and damaged her home. With both parents in custody, Nevada's Department of Family Services (DFS) placed T.M.R. in foster care and eventually petitioned to terminate the parents' rights so the child could be adopted. At trial, the State surprised Marcus by calling Gladys to testify even though it had never formally listed her as a trial witness in the manner Nevada's civil discovery rules normally require. Marcus asked the court to exclude her testimony because she had not been disclosed at least 45 days before trial as required by NRCP 16.2(e)(4). The trial judge ruled that NRCP 16.2's disclosure rules do not apply to termination of parental rights cases and let Gladys testify. After hearing all the evidence, the court terminated Marcus's parental rights. The Nevada Supreme Court used this appeal to clear up an ambiguity in the civil rules. The Court explained that Nevada has three related rules governing when parties must disclose their witnesses: NRCP 16.1 covers most civil cases (but exempts family-court cases), NRCP 16.2 covers divorces and similar matters, and NRCP 16.205 covers paternity and custody disputes between unmarried parents. None of the rules explicitly says it applies to a case to terminate parental rights. Reading the rules together, however, the Court concluded that NRCP 16.2's witness-disclosure rules do apply in termination cases. The Court reasoned that any other reading would allow "trial by ambush" - a surprise witness used against a parent facing what the Court described as "the equivalent of the civil death penalty." So the trial judge was wrong to admit Gladys's testimony without proper notice. But the Supreme Court went on to hold that the mistake was "harmless" - meaning it did not change the outcome - because, even setting Gladys's testimony aside, there was more than enough other evidence to justify ending Marcus's parental rights. That evidence included: T.M.R. had been out of his parents' home for more than 14 months (which under Nevada law creates a legal presumption that termination is in the child's best interests); T.M.R. had bonded with his foster family, who wanted to adopt him; Marcus had failed to make timely progress on the case plan DFS designed to help him reunify with his son; Marcus minimized his drug use and blamed his relapses on Dana; he refused multiple drug tests; and he denied having anger problems despite the underlying violent incident. Because that evidence amply supported the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Marcus's parental rights.

This case is about whether a baby in foster care should be presumed to belong with her biological sister, even though that sister has already been adopted by another family. Baby Girl W. was born in October 2017 and was quickly placed in foster care as a child in need of protection. The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) decided that adoption was the right long-term plan for her. Baby Girl W. has a 3-year-old biological half-sister named Vivian, who was previously adopted by Amy Mulkern in Massachusetts. DFS itself contacted Amy in early 2018 to ask whether she would adopt Baby Girl W. so the sisters could grow up together. Amy went through the interstate placement process and was approved as a possible placement. But DFS ultimately concluded that Baby Girl W. had bonded with her current foster parents - who are also willing to adopt her - and recommended she stay with them. Amy went to the Nevada district court handling the dependency case. The court allowed Amy and the foster parents to participate as "persons with a special interest," meaning they can recommend a placement and testify at the placement hearing. But the district court also ruled that, because Vivian had been adopted, she was no longer legally Baby Girl W.'s sibling for purposes of a Nevada statute - NRS 432B.550(5)(a) - that tells courts to presume placing siblings together is in a foster child's best interest. The district court therefore decided that presumption did not apply. Amy and Vivian asked the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus - a court order forcing the lower court to do something it is required by law to do. They wanted the Supreme Court to make the district court apply the sibling presumption when deciding where Baby Girl W. should live. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with Amy and Vivian on that point. The court explained that Nevada law repeatedly emphasizes keeping siblings together - in initial protective placements, in placements after parental rights are terminated, in adoptions, and in custody decisions. No Nevada statute says that adoption erases sibling status for placement purposes. Because the Legislature has stressed sibling relationships so consistently, the court concluded it would not assume - without clearer instruction - that lawmakers wanted the presumption to vanish the moment one sibling is adopted. The court therefore directed the district court to apply the rebuttable sibling presumption in NRS 432B.550(5) when deciding where to place Baby Girl W. "Rebuttable" means the presumption can still be overcome - the district court can still decide, based on evidence, that placement with the sibling is not in the baby's best interest. The court did not order any other relief, noting that the district court had already considered the Mulkerns' arguments, included Amy as a possible placement, and invited her to participate at the upcoming placement hearing. The court also added a footnote making clear that its ruling does not change separate Nevada rules about confidentiality, visitation, or inheritance after adoption, and does not require DFS to do more than its statutory duty to look for relatives.

This case arose after the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) received an anonymous hotline call in April 2010 alleging that Keaundra D.'s infant son, C.L.B., Jr., had been burned on the face. Keaundra told investigators that the burn occurred when her two-year-old daughter, A.D.L., reported that C.L.B., Jr. had "tried to kiss" a hot iron that fell off a dresser while Keaundra was in another room. DFS removed both children from Keaundra's care. One physician who examined the child in person, Dr. Neuman, found "no evidence of abuse." A different doctor, Dr. Mehta, who reviewed only photographs, opined the burn was deliberate. The juvenile court found the injury was nonaccidental and ordered Keaundra to follow a "case plan" - a list of steps she had to complete to get her children back. She maintained housing and a job, kept in touch with DFS, completed parenting classes, and finished a physical-abuse assessment and therapy. Her therapist testified that her risk of reoffending was low and that she showed none of the signs typical of an abusive parent. DFS itself reported that she had "successfully completed her case plan and has the knowledge and tools to effectively parent her children." But DFS still wanted her parental rights terminated, and the district court still terminated them, for one reason: Keaundra would not admit that she had deliberately held the iron to her son's face. Her case plan required her to "articulate" the "sequence of events" leading to the abuse "as sustained by the Court." Because she insisted the burn was accidental, the court treated her as out of compliance. DFS confirmed at trial that, had Keaundra admitted intentional abuse, it would not have sought termination. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves, not just in criminal trials but in any proceeding where their answers might be used against them in a future criminal case. Admitting that one held a hot iron to a child's face would expose a person to prosecution for child abuse under Nevada law (NRS 200.508). The court held that a parent cannot be forced to choose between admitting a crime and losing her children - that choice is unconstitutionally coercive. The court drew a line: a juvenile court may require a parent to participate in meaningful therapy, even if therapy works better when a parent acknowledges past conduct, and a parent who refuses meaningful therapy may face consequences. But a court cannot require, as a condition of keeping parental rights, that the parent expressly admit to a crime. The court also held that the evidence did not support termination on its own merits. Nevada law presumes termination is in a child's best interest when the child has been out of the home for 14 of 20 consecutive months, and presumes a parent has made only "token efforts" in similar circumstances. The court found Keaundra rebutted both presumptions: she stayed in regular phone contact, her mother brought the children to visit, A.D.L. cried and begged to go home to her mother, Keaundra helped support the children financially, and after the first termination order the children waited 17 months in foster care before being placed with relatives. Without the presumptions, there was not substantial evidence to terminate.

This case involves the termination of a father's parental rights to his two surviving children. Between 2006 and 2011, the family experienced seven separate incidents in which one of the three children swallowed foreign objects such as coins, magnets, and batteries. All occurred while the father, Arli, was at work and the mother, Abigail, was home with the children. One son, J.M., died in 2006 from undetermined causes. After three-year-old E.M.M. required surgery to remove a large battery lodged in his throat, doctors became concerned that Abigail was forcing the children to swallow objects and contacted child protective services. The doctors compared the size of the battery, for a child E.M.M.'s age, to an adult swallowing a golf ball. In November 2011, DFS removed A.P.M. and E.M.M. from the home and placed them in foster care. The juvenile court gave each parent a "case plan" - a written list of things they had to do (such as parenting classes and counseling) to try to get their children back. Arli completed his case plan quickly. Even so, in December 2012, DFS asked the court to terminate both parents' rights permanently. After a five-day hearing, the district court ordered termination, finding that Arli had been neglectful by not taking action to protect his children after the repeated swallowing incidents - including continuing to leave them alone with Abigail - and that termination was in the children's best interests. Abigail died while the appeal was pending, leaving only Arli's appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court addressed two new legal questions. First, it held that finishing a court-ordered case plan does not, by itself, prevent a court from terminating parental rights. A completed case plan can be persuasive evidence in the parent's favor, but Nevada law does not make it a shield against termination if the other legal grounds are satisfied. Second, it interpreted a Nevada statute that creates two legal presumptions when a child has lived outside the home "for 14 months of any 20 consecutive months": (1) the parent is presumed to have made only token efforts, and (2) termination is presumed to be in the child's best interest. Arli argued the district court had to wait the full 20 months before applying these presumptions. The Supreme Court disagreed - once the 14-month threshold is hit, the presumptions can apply right away. Here the children had been out of the home about 17 months, which was enough. Finally, the court held that "substantial evidence" - meaning enough credible evidence that a reasonable factfinder could agree - supported termination. The court pointed to Arli's failure to take protective action after seven serious swallowing incidents, his limited relationship with the children, and the foster parent's testimony that she had a close relationship with the children and wished to adopt them. The court noted that even with Abigail's death, Arli remained "unable to protect his children from danger, swallowing or otherwise." Two justices dissented in whole or in part. Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Cherry, would have remanded for a new best-interests hearing because Abigail - the apparent source of the danger - had died and Arli had completed his case plan. Justice Saitta agreed with most of the majority opinion but wrote separately to dissent on the parental-fault finding, viewing Arli's mistaken belief about Abigail and his completed case plan as not enough to amount to neglect.