Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109 (2026)

Determination of conduct of parent; presumptions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

NRS 128.109 Determination of conduct of parent; presumptions.

1. If a child has been placed outside of his or her home pursuant to chapter 432B of NRS, the following provisions must be applied to determine the conduct of the parent:

(a) If the child has resided outside of his or her home pursuant to that placement for 14 months of any 20 consecutive months, it must be presumed that the parent or parents have demonstrated only token efforts to care for the child as set forth in subparagraph (6) of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 128.105.

(b) If the parent or parents fail to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of a plan to reunite the family within 6 months after the date on which the child was placed or the plan was commenced, whichever occurs later, that failure to comply is evidence of failure of parental adjustment as set forth in subparagraph (4) of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 128.105.

2. If a child has been placed outside of his or her home pursuant to chapter 432B of NRS and has resided outside of his or her home pursuant to that placement for 14 months of any 20 consecutive months, the best interests of the child must be presumed to be served by the termination of parental rights.

3. The presumptions specified in subsections 1 and 2 must not be overcome or otherwise affected by evidence of failure of the State to provide services to the family.

(Added to NRS by 1987, 172; A 1993, 2690; 1995, 361; 1999, 2028; 2015, 1185)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 70 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 28× “1 Next, we consider the applicable burden of proof imposed upon a parent in order to rebut the parental-fault and child’s-best-interest presumptions contained in NRS 128.109. Finally, we decide whether substantial evidence supports the family division of the district court’s…”

Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 28× “NRS 128.109(1) (a) Under subsection (a), if a child is removed from the home under NRS Chapter 432B and has resided outside the home for 14 of any 20 consecutive months, it is presumed that the parent has demonstrated “only token efforts to care for the child as set forth in…”

Vincent L. G. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Human Resources, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 12× “On appeal, Vincent argues that NRS 128.109(2) is unconstitutional as it infringes on his substantive due process rights.”

Richard J. K. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 9× “Regarding the best interests of the children, the district court concluded that Richard, while objecting to the termination of his parental rights, had failed to overcome the presumption in favor of termination of his parental rights as enunciated in NRS 128.109(2). 7 The…”

Diana L. N. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 55 P.3d 955 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 5× “Taken together, NRS 128.109(2) and NRS 432B.553(2) express the general public policy to seek permanent placement for children rather than have them remain in foster care.”

Washoe Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kory L.G., 295 P.3d 589 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 9× “Therefore, the presumptions favoring termination of parental rights under NRS 128.109, which arose from the child being placed outside the home in the dependency proceeding, do not apply to respondent, and the district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to establish…”

Matter of Parental Rights as to DRH, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 12× “Token efforts Pursuant to NRS 128.109(1)(a), because the children were in foster care for *1237 over thirty consecutive months, a presumption arose that Cristan and Vincent had "demonstrated only token efforts" to reunify with their children.”

Letesheia O. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 115 P.3d 223 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 4× “We note that the statutory presumptions set forth in NRS 128.109 are rebuttable. J.L.N., 118 Nev.”

Donald B. v. Nev. Dep't of Fam. Servs. (In re S.L.), 422 P.3d 1253 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 5× “The court also found that the presumptions under NRS 128.109 applied because the children had been in foster care for 30 months, and that termination served the children's best interest because they needed a home free from violence and they had integrated into their foster…”

Matter of Parental Rights as to KDL, 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002). · cites it 9× “The district court also found that Richard had not rebutted the presumption of NRS 128.109(1)(b), [6] regarding failure of parental adjustment.”

Gonzales v. Dep't of Human Resources, 933 P.2d 198 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 8× “Equally under NRS 128.109, there is a presumption that .”

Dawn M. v. Nevada State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 221 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 3× “NRS 128.109(2). When this presumption applies, the parent bears the burden of presenting enough evidence to overcome the presumption.”

Show all 70 citing cases →

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(1) — 3 cases

Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). “NRS 128.109(1) (a) Under subsection (a), if a child is removed from the home under NRS Chapter 432B and has resided outside the home for 14 of any 20 consecutive months, it is presumed that the parent has demonstrated “only token efforts to care for the child as set forth in…”

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

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(1)(a) — 40 cases

Washoe Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kory L.G., 295 P.3d 589 (Nev. 2013). “Therefore, the presumptions favoring termination of parental rights under NRS 128.109, which arose from the child being placed outside the home in the dependency proceeding, do not apply to respondent, and the district court correctly concluded that appellant failed to establish…”

Donald B. v. Nev. Dep't of Fam. Servs. (In re S.L.), 422 P.3d 1253 (Nev. 2018). “The court also found that the presumptions under NRS 128.109 applied because the children had been in foster care for 30 months, and that termination served the children's best interest because they needed a home free from violence and they had integrated into their foster…”

Letesheia O. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 115 P.3d 223 (Nev. 2005). “We note that the statutory presumptions set forth in NRS 128.109 are rebuttable. J.L.N., 118 Nev.”

Matter of Parental Rights as to DRH, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). “Token efforts Pursuant to NRS 128.109(1)(a), because the children were in foster care for *1237 over thirty consecutive months, a presumption arose that Cristan and Vincent had "demonstrated only token efforts" to reunify with their children.”

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

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(1)(b) — 13 cases

Matter of Parental Rights as to KDL, 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002). “The district court also found that Richard had not rebutted the presumption of NRS 128.109(1)(b), [6] regarding failure of parental adjustment.”

Letesheia O. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 115 P.3d 223 (Nev. 2005). “We note that the statutory presumptions set forth in NRS 128.109 are rebuttable. J.L.N., 118 Nev.”

Matter of Parental Rights as to Bow, 930 P.2d 1128 (Nev. 1997).

Gonzales v. Dep't of Human Resources, 933 P.2d 198 (Nev. 1997). “Equally under NRS 128.109, there is a presumption that .”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(2) — 48 cases

Vincent L. G. v. State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., Dep't of Human Resources, 92 P.3d 1230 (Nev. 2004). “On appeal, Vincent argues that NRS 128.109(2) is unconstitutional as it infringes on his substantive due process rights.”

Richard J. K. v. State, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 58 P.3d 181 (Nev. 2002). “Regarding the best interests of the children, the district court concluded that Richard, while objecting to the termination of his parental rights, had failed to overcome the presumption in favor of termination of his parental rights as enunciated in NRS 128.109(2). 7 The…”

Diana L. N. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 55 P.3d 955 (Nev. 2002). “Taken together, NRS 128.109(2) and NRS 432B.553(2) express the general public policy to seek permanent placement for children rather than have them remain in foster care.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(3) — 3 cases

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

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

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

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(l)(a) — 4 cases

Quiana M. B. v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 283 P.3d 842 (Nev. 2012). “1 Next, we consider the applicable burden of proof imposed upon a parent in order to rebut the parental-fault and child’s-best-interest presumptions contained in NRS 128.109. Finally, we decide whether substantial evidence supports the family division of the district court’s…”

Dawn M. v. Nevada State Div. of Child & Fam. Servs., 221 P.3d 1255 (Nev. 2009). “NRS 128.109(2). When this presumption applies, the parent bears the burden of presenting enough evidence to overcome the presumption.”

— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(l)(b) — 6 cases

Matter of Parental Rights as to Bow, 930 P.2d 1128 (Nev. 1997).

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.