Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 128 - TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.005 (2026)

Legislative declaration and findings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 128.005  Legislative declaration and findings.

      1.  The Legislature declares that the preservation and strengthening of family life is a part of the public policy of this State.

      2.  The Legislature finds that:

      (a) Severance of the parent and child relationship is a matter of such importance in order to safeguard the rights of parent and child as to require judicial determination.

      (b) Judicial selection of the person or agency to be entrusted with the custody and control of a child after such severance promotes the welfare of the parties and of this State.

      (c) The continuing needs of a child for proper physical, mental and emotional growth and development are the decisive considerations in proceedings for termination of parental rights.

      (Added to NRS by 1975, 963; A 1981, 1752)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). · cites it 4× “NRS 128.005(1) ("The Legislature declares that the preservation and strengthening of family life is a part of the public policy of this State.”
Matter of Parental Rights as to QLR, 54 P.3d 56 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 4× “In analyzing the best interests of the child, the district court should look to the factors outlined in NRS 128.005(2)(c) and consider each matter on a case-by-case basis.”
Charles C.L.A. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 3× “*169 DCFS argues that the district court’s order “clearly made explicit findings,’ ’ and that DCFS established, by clear and convincing evidence, that terminating appellant’s parental rights was warranted.”
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). “3d at 1237 (quoting NRS 128.005(2)(c)). Due to the time period that the children had been removed from the home, the family division of the district court applied NRS 128.”
Vincent L. G. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Human Resources, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). “NRS 128.005(2)(c). See Matter of N.J., 116 Nev.”
St. Mary v. Damon, 309 P.3d 1027 (Nev. 2013). “” NRS 128.005(1). Of the jurisdictions that have addressed the issue of maternity between two women who created a child through assisted reproduction, California is highly instructive.”
Matter of Parental Rights as to NJ, 8 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the best interests of the child and parental fault must both be shown by clear and convincing evidence.”
Dawn M. v. Nevada State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 221 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2009). “” NRS 128.005(2)(c). It is presumed that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest if a child has been in foster care for 14 of any 20 consecutive months.”
Donald B. v. Nev. Dep't of Fam. Servs. (In re S.L.), 422 P.3d 1253 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 128.005(2)(c) provides that "[t]he continuing needs of a child for proper physical, mental and emotional growth and development are the decisive considerations in proceedings for termination of parental rights.”
Philip R. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 416 P.3d 242 (Nev. 2018). “In this case, the hearing master failed to give adequate weight to the child's best interest when he stated that "the courts and legislature have determined that when comparing bonding with biological, family connection, family connection is the overriding consideration and the…”
State Ex Rel. Welfare Div. of the Dep't of Human Resources v. Vine, 662 P.2d 295 (Nev. 1983). “In NRS 128.005(2)(a), the Legislature found and declared that “ [severance of the parent and child relationship is a matter of such importance in order to safeguard the rights of parent and child as to require judicial determination.”
Daly v. Daly, 715 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “The district court also noted that his "selfishness" did not serve Mary's interests.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.005(1) — 4 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). “NRS 128.005(1) ("The Legislature declares that the preservation and strengthening of family life is a part of the public policy of this State.”
Charles C.L.A. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012). “*169 DCFS argues that the district court’s order “clearly made explicit findings,’ ’ and that DCFS established, by clear and convincing evidence, that terminating appellant’s parental rights was warranted.”
St. Mary v. Damon, 309 P.3d 1027 (Nev. 2013). “” NRS 128.005(1). Of the jurisdictions that have addressed the issue of maternity between two women who created a child through assisted reproduction, California is highly instructive.”
In Re Parental Rights as to Cca, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.005(2)(a) — 6 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). “NRS 128.005(1) ("The Legislature declares that the preservation and strengthening of family life is a part of the public policy of this State.”
Charles C.L.A. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012). “*169 DCFS argues that the district court’s order “clearly made explicit findings,’ ’ and that DCFS established, by clear and convincing evidence, that terminating appellant’s parental rights was warranted.”
State Ex Rel. Welfare Div. of the Dep't of Human Resources v. Vine, 662 P.2d 295 (Nev. 1983). “In NRS 128.005(2)(a), the Legislature found and declared that “ [severance of the parent and child relationship is a matter of such importance in order to safeguard the rights of parent and child as to require judicial determination.”
In Re Parental Rights as to Cca, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).
In Re: Parental Rights as to L.L.S., 2021 NV 22 (Nev. 2021).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.005(2)(c) — 23 cases
Matter of Parental Rights as to QLR, 54 P.3d 56 (Nev. 2002). “In analyzing the best interests of the child, the district court should look to the factors outlined in NRS 128.005(2)(c) and consider each matter on a case-by-case basis.”
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). “3d at 1237 (quoting NRS 128.005(2)(c)). Due to the time period that the children had been removed from the home, the family division of the district court applied NRS 128.”
Vincent L. G. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Human Resources, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). “NRS 128.005(2)(c). See Matter of N.J., 116 Nev.”
Dawn M. v. Nevada State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 221 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2009). “” NRS 128.005(2)(c). It is presumed that termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interest if a child has been in foster care for 14 of any 20 consecutive months.”
Donald B. v. Nev. Dep't of Fam. Servs. (In re S.L.), 422 P.3d 1253 (Nev. 2018). “NRS 128.005(2)(c) provides that "[t]he continuing needs of a child for proper physical, mental and emotional growth and development are the decisive considerations in proceedings for termination of parental rights.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.