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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.110 (2026)

Order terminating parental rights; preference for placement of child with certain relatives and siblings of child; period for completion of search for relative

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 128.110  Order terminating parental rights; preference for placement of child with certain relatives and siblings of child; period for completion of search for relative.

      1.  Whenever the procedure described in this chapter has been followed, and upon finding grounds for the termination of parental rights pursuant to NRS 128.105 at a hearing upon the petition, the court shall make a written order, signed by the judge presiding in the court, judicially depriving the parent or parents of the custody and control of, and terminating the parental rights of the parent or parents with respect to the child, and declaring the child to be free from such custody or control, and placing the custody and control of the child in some person or agency qualified by the laws of this State to provide services and care to children, or to receive any children for placement. The termination of parental rights pursuant to this section does not terminate the right of the child to inherit from his or her parent or parents, except that the right to inherit terminates if the child is adopted as provided in NRS 127A.250.

      2.  If the child is placed in the custody and control of a person or agency qualified by the laws of this State to receive children for placement, the person or agency, in seeking to place the child:

      (a) May give preference to the placement of the child with any person related within the fifth degree of consanguinity to the child whom the person or agency finds suitable and able to provide proper care and guidance for the child, regardless of whether the relative resides within this State.

      (b) Shall, if practicable, give preference to the placement of the child together with his or her siblings.

Ê Any search for a relative with whom to place a child pursuant to this subsection must be completed within 1 year after the initial placement of the child outside of his or her home.

      [11:161:1953]—(NRS A 1975, 966; 1981, 1755; 1991, 1177; 1999, 2028; 2009, 220; 2011, 142; 2025, 1552)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Philip R. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 416 P.3d 242 (Nev. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Philip R. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 416 P.3d 242 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 12× “We conclude that a familial placement preference survives the termination of parental rights, but the placement preference is then governed by NRS 128.110(2) rather than NRS 432B.550(5).”
State Ex Rel. Welfare Div. of the Dep't of Human Resources v. Vine, 662 P.2d 295 (Nev. 1983). · cites it 7× “EFFECT OF AN ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS Appellants’ central argument is that the Legislature was aware of the difference between rights on the one hand and responsibilities or obligations on the other, and the absence of the latter terms from NRS 128.110 1 indicates the…”
Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). “Under NRS 128.110(1), upon termination of parental rights, the child is to be placed in the custody and control of “some person or agency qualified by the laws of this State to provide services and care to children.”
Champagne v. Welfare Div. Of Nev. State Dept., 691 P.2d 849 (Nev. 1984). “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.”
Daly v. Daly, 715 P.2d 56 (Nev. 1986). · cites it 2× “NRS 128.110 authorizes the termination of parental rights upon finding grounds pursuant to NRS 128.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 16× “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 16× “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 16× “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
Hall v. Hall, 818 S.E.2d 838 (W. Va. 2018). “" (emphasis added) ); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 128.110 (1) (2011) ("The termination of parental rights pursuant to this section does not terminate the right of the child to inherit from his or her parent or parents, except that the right to inherit terminates if the child is…”
Destin v. Dist. Ct. (handwerker-lamaster) (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 42 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 8× “During the protective custody action, DFS's goal is typically to reunify the child with their parents or, if reunification becomes infeasible, the termination of parental rights. See NRS 432B.393. If the parents' rights are terminated, the child is placed in DFS's custody and…”
Mulkern v. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep't of Fam. Serv.'s) (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “550(6) and NRS 128.110. OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A cc: Hon.”
Mulkern Vs. Dist. Ct. (clark Cty. Dep't of Fam. Serv.'s), 2018 NV 82 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “550(6) and NRS 128.110. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 6 (0) 1947A e”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.110(1) — 3 cases
Tammila G. v. State, Dep't of Human Resources, 148 P.3d 759 (Nev. 2006). “Under NRS 128.110(1), upon termination of parental rights, the child is to be placed in the custody and control of “some person or agency qualified by the laws of this State to provide services and care to children.”
Mott v. Mott (Child Custody) (Nev. 2017).
Destin v. Dist. Ct. (handwerker-lamaster) (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 42 (Nev. 2025). “During the protective custody action, DFS's goal is typically to reunify the child with their parents or, if reunification becomes infeasible, the termination of parental rights. See NRS 432B.393. If the parents' rights are terminated, the child is placed in DFS's custody and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.110(2) — 6 cases
Philip R. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 416 P.3d 242 (Nev. 2018). “We conclude that a familial placement preference survives the termination of parental rights, but the placement preference is then governed by NRS 128.110(2) rather than NRS 432B.550(5).”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
Destin v. Dist. Ct. (handwerker-lamaster) (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 42 (Nev. 2025). “During the protective custody action, DFS's goal is typically to reunify the child with their parents or, if reunification becomes infeasible, the termination of parental rights. See NRS 432B.393. If the parents' rights are terminated, the child is placed in DFS's custody and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.110(2)(a) — 4 cases
Philip R. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 416 P.3d 242 (Nev. 2018). “We conclude that a familial placement preference survives the termination of parental rights, but the placement preference is then governed by NRS 128.110(2) rather than NRS 432B.550(5).”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 128.110(2)(b) — 5 cases
Philip R. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State, 416 P.3d 242 (Nev. 2018). “We conclude that a familial placement preference survives the termination of parental rights, but the placement preference is then governed by NRS 128.110(2) rather than NRS 432B.550(5).”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
In Re: Matter of E.R. c/w 73198, 2018 NV 29 (Nev. 2018). “However, the district court failed to enter factual findings or giveS adequate weight to the child's best interest or the Department of Family Services' discretion to determine placement in this case under NRS 128.110(2). Accordingly, we grant the petitions for writs of mandamus.”
Mulkern v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of Nev., 429 P.3d 277 (Nev. 2018).
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.