Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105 (2026)

Grounds for terminating parental rights: Considerations; required findings

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NRS 128.105 Grounds for terminating parental rights: Considerations; required findings.

1. The primary consideration in any proceeding to terminate parental rights must be whether the best interests of the child will be served by the termination. An order of the court for the termination of parental rights must be made in light of the considerations set forth in this section and NRS 128.106 to 128.109, inclusive, and based on evidence and include a finding that:

(a) The best interests of the child would be served by the termination of parental rights; and

(b) The conduct of the parent or parents was the basis for a finding made pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 432B.393 or demonstrated at least one of the following:

(1) Abandonment of the child;

(2) Neglect of the child;

(3) Unfitness of the parent;

(4) Failure of parental adjustment;

(5) Risk of serious physical, mental or emotional injury to the child if the child were returned to, or remains in, the home of his or her parent or parents;

(6) Only token efforts by the parent or parents:

(I) To support or communicate with the child;

(II) To prevent neglect of the child;

(III) To avoid being an unfit parent; or

(IV) To eliminate the risk of serious physical, mental or emotional injury to the child;

(7) With respect to termination of the parental rights of one parent, the abandonment by that parent; or

(8) The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault for which the natural parent was convicted.

2. Before making a finding pursuant to subparagraph (5) of paragraph (b) of subsection 1, if the child has been out of the care of his or her parent or guardian for at least 12 consecutive months, the court shall consider, without limitation:

(a) The placement options for the child;

(b) The age of the child; and

(Added to NRS by 1975, 964; A 1981, 1755; 1985, 244; 1987, 173, 210; 1995, 215; 1999, 2027; 2015, 1184; 2017, 752)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 133 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Richard J. K. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richard J. K. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 7× “12 In determining whether to terminate parental rights, this court has stated that “in conformance with NRS 128.105, we adopt a best interests/parental fault standard.”

Matter of Parental Rights as to NJ, 8 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 14× “Based on legislative amendments to NRS 128.105, which sets forth the grounds for terminating parental rights, we now reject our Champagne standard, which requires a district court to find jurisdictional grounds to terminate parental rights before it considers the best interests…”

Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 5× “Because George has no parental rights over the children, and this case involves the termination of Tammila’s parental rights, George’s case plan and his adherence thereto is not in issue.”

Gonzales v. Dep't of Human Resources, 933 P.2d 198 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 14× “As grounds for termination, *202 the petition asserted abandonment, neglect, unfitness of the parent, failure of parental adjustment, risk of harm to the girls, and "token efforts" as elaborated upon in NRS 128.105. On September 28, 1995, the district court appointed counsel for…”

Daly v. Daly, 715 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 16× “110 authorizes the termination of parental rights upon finding grounds pursuant to NRS 128.105. In the recent decision of Champagne v.”

Matter of Parental Rights as to Bow, 930 P.2d 1128 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 10× “The district court found that jurisdictional grounds existed pursuant to two factors listed in NRS 128.105. The first was Recodo's parental unfitness.”

Vincent L. G. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Human Resources, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 4× “Also, the statute must be read in conjunction with NRS 128.105, which requires the court to examine the child’s best interest and also to make a determination concerning parental fault.”

Weinper v. Nevada State Dep't of Human Resources, 918 P.2d 325 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 8× “We hold that Weinper's due process rights were not violated, despite the negligence of DCFS in this case. Turning to Weinper's contention that DCFS failed to establish sufficient jurisdictional and dispositional grounds, we hold that the district court correctly found both.”

Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 3× “090(2); see NRS 128.105. On appeal, we review purely legal questions de novo.”

Champagne v. Welfare Div. Of Nev. State Dept., 691 P.2d 849 (Nev. 1984). · cites it 4× “NRS 128.105 1 provides that a termination order “may be made on the grounds that the termination is in the child’s best interest in light of the considerations set forth in this section and NRS 128.”

Parental Rights as to Daniels v. Dep't of Human Resources, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 953 P.2d 1 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 8× “NRS 128.105 [5] enumerates the grounds for terminating parental rights.”

Matter of Parental Rights as to Carron, 956 P.2d 785 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 10× “105 for the termination of Shawn's parental rights: (1) abandonment, (2) risk of serious injury to the child if returned to the home of the parent, and (3) token efforts by the parent.”

Show all 133 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1) — 54 cases

Daly v. Daly, 715 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1986). “110 authorizes the termination of parental rights upon finding grounds pursuant to NRS 128.105. In the recent decision of Champagne v.”

Charles C.L.A. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).

Donald B. v. Nev. Dep't of Fam. Servs. (In re S.L.), 422 P.3d 1253 (Nev. 2018).

Philip R. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 416 P.3d 242 (Nev. 2018).

Pyborn v. Quathamer, 605 P.2d 1147 (Nev. 1980).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(2015) — 1 case

In Re: Parental Rights as to D.S.S., S.M.S. (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(a) — 7 cases

Donald B. v. Nev. Dep't of Fam. Servs. (In re S.L.), 422 P.3d 1253 (Nev. 2018).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.l., N.r.b., H.r.b., W.C.B. c/w 71889, 2018 NV 59 (Nev. 2018).

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.M.R., 2021 NV 23 (Nev. 2021).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.l., N.r.b., H.r.b., W.C.B. c/w 71889, 2018 NV 59 (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b) — 41 cases

Donald B. v. Nev. Dep't of Fam. Servs. (In re S.L.), 422 P.3d 1253 (Nev. 2018).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.M.R., 2021 NV 23 (Nev. 2021).

In Re: Parental Rights As To S.V. (Nev. 2022).

In Re: Parental Rights as to J.P.D. C/W 71105 (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(1) — 5 cases

In Re: Parental Rights of S.L.M. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to R.t., K.g-t., N.h-t. & E.h-t., 2017 NV 38 (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to D.S.S., S.M.S. (Nev. 2018).

In Re: Parental Rights as to R.t., K.g-t., N.h-t. & E.h-t., 2017 NV 38 (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(2) — 3 cases

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.R.C. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to L.L.s-c. (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(3) — 9 cases

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.R.C. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

In Re: Parental Rights as to M.S.M. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to K.S., K.M., & J.M. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to J.W.J., J.C.J. (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(4) — 2 cases

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.M.R., 2021 NV 23 (Nev. 2021).

In Re: Parental Rights as to N.S.T. & S.A.G. (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(5) — 5 cases

In Re: Parental Rights as to R.t., K.g-t., N.h-t. & E.h-t., 2017 NV 38 (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.R.C. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to I.M., J.M. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to R.t., K.g-t., N.h-t. & E.h-t., 2017 NV 38 (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(6) — 10 cases

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

In Re: Parental Rights as to L.r.s., J.M.S. & J.L.S., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 62 (Nev. 2024).

In Re: Parental Rights as to R.t., K.g-t., N.h-t. & E.h-t., 2017 NV 38 (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to T.R.C. (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to V.I.F. (Nev. 2018).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(6)(I) — 4 cases

In Re: Parental Rights as to A.D.L. & C.l.b., Jr., 2017 NV 72 (Nev. 2017).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

In Re: Parental Rights as to K.A.S. (Nev. 2018).

In Re: Parental Rights as to A.D.L. & C.l.b., Jr., 2017 NV 72 (Nev. 2017).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(6)(II) — 1 case

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(6)(III) — 1 case

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(1)(b)(6)(IV) — 1 case

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.A.T. (Fam.), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 46 (Nev. 2025).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(2) — 24 cases

Vincent L. G. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Human Resources, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). “Also, the statute must be read in conjunction with NRS 128.105, which requires the court to examine the child’s best interest and also to make a determination concerning parental fault.”

Matter of Parental Rights as to DRH, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004).

Charles C.L.A. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).

Matter of Parental Rights as to Carron, 956 P.2d 785 (Nev. 1998). “105 for the termination of Shawn's parental rights: (1) abandonment, (2) risk of serious injury to the child if returned to the home of the parent, and (3) token efforts by the parent.”

Cooley v. Div. of Child & Fam. Servs. of The Nevada State Dep't of Human Resources, 946 P.2d 155 (Nev. 1997).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(2)(a) — 7 cases

Richard J. K. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002). “12 In determining whether to terminate parental rights, this court has stated that “in conformance with NRS 128.105, we adopt a best interests/parental fault standard.”

Matter of Parental Rights as to KDL, 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002).

Matter of Parental Rights as to NJ, 8 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2000). “Based on legislative amendments to NRS 128.105, which sets forth the grounds for terminating parental rights, we now reject our Champagne standard, which requires a district court to find jurisdictional grounds to terminate parental rights before it considers the best interests…”

Sam Z. v. Hikmet, 8 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2000).

in Re: Parental Rights as to K.W. (Nev. 2013).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(2)(b) — 6 cases

Matter of Parental Rights as to DRH, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004).

In Re: Parental Rights as to A.P.M. & E.M.M., 2015 NV 66 (Nev. 2015).

In Re: Parental Rights as to K.M.C. & M.M.C. (Nev. 2016).

In Re: Parental Rights as to A.P.M. & E.M.M., 2015 NV 66 (Nev. 2015).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(2)(c) — 7 cases

Letesheia O. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 115 P.3d 223 (Nev. 2005).

Matter of Parental Rights as to Bow, 930 P.2d 1128 (Nev. 1997). “The district court found that jurisdictional grounds existed pursuant to two factors listed in NRS 128.105. The first was Recodo's parental unfitness.”

In Re Parental Rights as to NDO, 115 P.3d 223 (Nev. 2005).

Cooley v. State, Dept. Hum. Res., 946 P.2d 155 (Nev. 1997).

In Re: Parental Rights as to E. W. (Nev. 2015).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(2)(d) — 6 cases

Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). “Because George has no parental rights over the children, and this case involves the termination of Tammila’s parental rights, George’s case plan and his adherence thereto is not in issue.”

Washoe Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kory L.G., 295 P.3d 589 (Nev. 2013).

In Re: Parental Rights as to C.M., N.M., & O.M. (Nev. 2014).

In Re: Parental Rights as to S.R.L. (Nev. 2015).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(2)(e) — 6 cases

Charles C.L.A. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).

Matter of Parental Rights as to KDL, 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002).

In Re Parental Rights as to Cca, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).

In Re: Parental Rights as to D.D., S.D. & J.D. (Nev. 2016).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(2)(f) — 6 cases

Dawn M. v. Nevada State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 221 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2009).

Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). “090(2); see NRS 128.105. On appeal, we review purely legal questions de novo.”

In Re Nj, 221 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2009).

In Re Parental Rights as to Cca, 273 P.3d 852 (Nev. 2012).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(3) — 1 case

Weinper v. Nevada State Dep't of Human Resources, 918 P.2d 325 (Nev. 1996). “We hold that Weinper's due process rights were not violated, despite the negligence of DCFS in this case. Turning to Weinper's contention that DCFS failed to establish sufficient jurisdictional and dispositional grounds, we hold that the district court correctly found both.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(4) — 2 cases

Daly v. Daly, 715 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1986). “110 authorizes the termination of parental rights upon finding grounds pursuant to NRS 128.105. In the recent decision of Champagne v.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(5)(a) — 1 case

Daly v. Daly, 715 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1986). “110 authorizes the termination of parental rights upon finding grounds pursuant to NRS 128.105. In the recent decision of Champagne v.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(b) — 2 cases

In Re: Parental Rights As To C.A.L. C/W 77075 (Nev. 2020).

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.105(l)(b) — 1 case

R.M v. McKinney (In re C.N.E.S.-N.), 444 P.3d 456 (Nev. 2019).

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.