NRS
128.090 Hearing: Time; procedure; evidence; postponement; closed court;
confidentiality of hearings, files and records pertaining to terminating
parental rights.
1. At the time stated in the notice, or at
the earliest time thereafter to which the hearing may be postponed, the court
shall proceed to hear the petition.
2. The proceedings are civil in nature and
are governed by the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. The court shall in all
cases require the petitioner to establish the facts by clear and convincing
evidence and shall give full and careful consideration to all of the evidence
presented, with regard to the rights and claims of the parent of the child and
to any and all ties of blood or affection, but with a dominant purpose of
serving the best interests of the child.
3. Information contained in a report filed
pursuant to NRS 432.097 to 432.130, inclusive, or chapter 432B of NRS may not be excluded from
the proceeding by the invoking of any privilege.
4. In the event of postponement, all
persons served, who are not present or represented in court at the time of the
postponement, must be notified thereof in the manner provided by the Nevada
Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. Any hearing held pursuant to this
section must be held in closed court without admittance of any person other
than those necessary to the action or proceeding, unless the court determines
that holding such a hearing in open court will not be detrimental to the child.
6. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 7, any hearing held pursuant to NRS
128.005 to 128.150, inclusive, is
confidential and must be held in closed court without the admittance of any
person other than the petitioner, attorneys, any witnesses, the director of an
agency which provides child welfare services or an authorized representative of
such person and any other person entitled to notice, except by order of the
court.
7. The files and records of the court in a
proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to NRS 128.005 to 128.150, inclusive, are not open to
inspection by any person except:
(a) The person petitioning for the termination of
parental rights and a person who intends to file a response to such a petition;
or
(b) Upon an order of the court expressly so
permitting pursuant to a petition setting forth the reasons therefor.
[9:161:1953]—(NRS A 1969,
95; 1981,
1754; 1985,
128, 1398;
1991,
199; 2017,
752)
Notes of Decisions
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 12× “090(2)’s language that a court “shall in all cases require the petitioner to establish the facts by clear and convincing evidence and shall give full and careful consideration to all of the evidence presented, with regard to the rights and claims of the parent of the child.”
Chapman v. Chapman, 607 P.2d 1141 (Nev. 1980).
· cites it 2× “NRS 128.090. We have held that, on review, we will sustain a finding of abandonment if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it, Sernaker v.”
MacK v. Ashlock, 921 P.2d 1258 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 2× “[2] We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by requiring Mack to overcome, by clear and convincing evidence, Ashlock's decision relating to the children's schooling.”
Bush v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 929 P.2d 940 (Nev. 1996).
· cites it 2× “It is certainly appropriate for the courts to consider the interest of the child as a "primary consideration," so long as, in doing so, they do not ignore the constitutional rights of the parents, as this court appears to have done in the present case.”
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
“007 is incomplete in establishing evidentiary standards, and no legislative history discusses evidentiary burdens for any of the NRS 125C.”
Sernaker v. Ehrlich, 468 P.2d 5 (Nev. 1970).
· cites it 2× “2d 591 (1960); NRS 128.090. 2 The court will uphold the termination of parental rights if there is substantial evidence in the record *280 to support abandonment under NRS 128.”
Kobinski v. State, Welfare Div., 738 P.2d 895 (Nev. 1987).
“2d 528 (1982); and NRS 128.090(2). According to Pyborn , a finding of abandonment is sufficient in itself to afford jurisdictional grounds.”
State Ex Rel. Welfare Div. of the Dep't of Human Resources v. Vine, 662 P.2d 295 (Nev. 1983).
“005(2)(c); NRS 128.090. 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.”
Matter of Parental Rights as to NJ, 8 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2000).
“NRS 128.090(2) provides in relevant part that the district court "shall in all cases require the petitioner to establish the facts by clear and convincing evidence and shall give full and careful consideration to all of the evidence presented.”
Greeson v. Barnes, 900 P.2d 943 (Nev. 1995).
“Moreover, between the 1987 hearing and the 1992 trial, Greeson sent only $60 in child support and only made those payments after he discovered that Barnes had petitioned for termination of his parental rights.”
In Re Parental Rights as to Cca, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).
· cites it 2× “005(2)(a) (recognizing that "[s]everance 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"); see generally NRS Chapter 128. To that end, when petitioning the district…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.090(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.090(2) — 20 cases
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012).
“090(2)’s language that a court “shall in all cases require the petitioner to establish the facts by clear and convincing evidence and shall give full and careful consideration to all of the evidence presented, with regard to the rights and claims of the parent of the child.”
MacK v. Ashlock, 921 P.2d 1258 (Nev. 1996).
“[2] We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by requiring Mack to overcome, by clear and convincing evidence, Ashlock's decision relating to the children's schooling.”
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
“007 is incomplete in establishing evidentiary standards, and no legislative history discusses evidentiary burdens for any of the NRS 125C.”
Kobinski v. State, Welfare Div., 738 P.2d 895 (Nev. 1987).
“2d 528 (1982); and NRS 128.090(2). According to Pyborn , a finding of abandonment is sufficient in itself to afford jurisdictional grounds.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.090(3) — 2 cases
Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012).
“090(2)’s language that a court “shall in all cases require the petitioner to establish the facts by clear and convincing evidence and shall give full and careful consideration to all of the evidence presented, with regard to the rights and claims of the parent of the child.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.090(4) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.090(5) — 3 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.090(7) — 1 case
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.