Nevada family-law case summaries

This case asks whether a Nevada court can take away a parent's legal rights to her children because she is poor. The Nevada Supreme Court answers clearly that poverty alone is not, and never has been, a permissible reason to terminate parental rights. But the Court also holds that the trial judge in this case did not, in fact, terminate the mother's rights because she was poor. He terminated them because, even with substantial help from the State and a nonprofit, she did not follow through on the steps required to be reunited with her children. Jacqueline G. is the mother of four children. Beginning in late 2012, child-welfare authorities received reports that she did not have stable housing. She moved frequently, was evicted, and had used up local housing resources. Three of her children were removed from her custody in April 2013. Her fourth child, E.H.-T., was born in January 2014 and was removed later after a caseworker found a motel room with animal feces, urine, dirty diapers, and significant clutter that posed a safety risk to the now-mobile baby. WCDSS gave Jacqueline a written "case plan" - a list of things she needed to do to get her children back. The plan required her to find and keep housing, obtain stable income (through work or welfare), and show she could meet her children's basic needs. WCDSS and a nonprofit called the Children's Cabinet then provided extensive help: referrals to the Reno Housing Authority and Section 8 housing, victim-assistance programs, low-income energy assistance, job-search help, resume help, mental-health referrals, hotel funds, diapers, donated furniture, bus passes, clothing for job interviews, and more. Despite this assistance, Jacqueline lived in roughly 15 different shelters, apartments, and motels between October 2012 and July 2015. She quit or was fired from nearly every job within a month. She did not complete therapy with any of three referred therapists. She did not use a Section 8 voucher she received, did not apply for Victims of Crime Act funds, and did not submit paperwork for low-income energy assistance. After a six-day trial with 21 witnesses, the district court terminated her parental rights, finding that she had made only "token efforts" toward reunification and that termination served the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirms. Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Parraguirre uses the case to make a clear public statement: under Nevada law, a parent cannot be found neglectful or unfit simply because she lacks money. The relevant statutes themselves require the parent to be "financially able" before failing to provide basic care counts against her. But that protection does not shield a parent who fails to use the resources she is given. The Court concludes there was substantial evidence that Jacqueline's failure to reunite with her children was not caused by poverty, but by her not following through on the help offered. The Court also rejects Jacqueline's argument that the district court was required to find "serious harm" to the children before terminating her rights. Nevada law lists several possible grounds for parental fault, and the trial court only needs to find one of them.