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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109 (2026)

Determination of conduct of parent; presumptions

✓ current as of July 2026 Cite as: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109 (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 Department of Family Services
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Quiana M. B. v. State Department of Family Services (2012) nev · 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, Department of Human Resources (2006) nev · 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 Division of Child & Family Services, Department of Human Resources (2004) nev · 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, Division of Child & Family Services (2002) nev · 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, Department of Human Resources, Division of Child & Family Services (2002) nev · 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 County Department of Social Services v. Kory L.G. (2013) nev · 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 (2004) nev · 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, Division of Child & Family Services (2005) nev · 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 Family Servs. (In re S.L.) (2018) nev · 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 (2002) nev · 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. Department of Human Resources (1997) nev · cites it 8× “Equally under NRS 128.109, there is a presumption that .”
Dawn M. v. Nevada State Division of Child & Family Services (2009) nev · 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, Department of Human Resources (2006) nev “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. AND C.L.B., JR. (2017) nev
IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO A.D.L. AND C.L.B., JR. (2017) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(1)(a) — 40 cases
Washoe County Department of Social Services v. Kory L.G. (2013) nev “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 Family Servs. (In re S.L.) (2018) nev “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, Division of Child & Family Services (2005) nev “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 (2004) nev “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 (2005) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(1)(b) — 13 cases
Matter of Parental Rights as to KDL (2002) nev “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, Division of Child & Family Services (2005) nev “We note that the statutory presumptions set forth in NRS 128.109 are rebuttable. J.L.N., 118 Nev.”
Washoe County Department of Social Services v. Kory L.G. (2013) nev “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 Bow (1997) nev
Gonzales v. Department of Human Resources (1997) nev “Equally under NRS 128.109, there is a presumption that .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(2) — 48 cases
Tammila G. v. State, Department of Human Resources (2006) nev “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 Division of Child & Family Services, Department of Human Resources (2004) nev “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, Division of Child & Family Services (2002) nev “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…”
Matter of Parental Rights as to DRH (2004) nev “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.”
Diana L. N. v. State, Department of Human Resources, Division of Child & Family Services (2002) nev “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.) (2019) nev
In Re: Parental Rights as to A.J.E. (2015) nev
In Re: Parental Rights as to E. W. (2015) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.109(l)(a) — 4 cases
Tammila G. v. State, Department of Human Resources (2006) nev “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…”
Quiana M. B. v. State Department of Family Services (2012) nev “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…”
Vincent L. G. v. State Division of Child & Family Services, Department of Human Resources (2004) nev “On appeal, Vincent argues that NRS 128.109(2) is unconstitutional as it infringes on his substantive due process rights.”
Dawn M. v. Nevada State Division of Child & Family Services (2009) nev “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
Richard J. K. v. State, Division of Child & Family Services (2002) nev “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…”
Tammila G. v. State, Department of Human Resources (2006) nev “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…”
Diana L. N. v. State, Department of Human Resources, Division of Child & Family Services (2002) nev “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.”
Quiana M. B. v. State Department of Family Services (2012) nev “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…”
Matter of Parental Rights as to Bow (1997) nev
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.