## Facts

- Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) received a report that a child, C.L.B., Jr., had a facial burn allegedly caused by an iron.
- The mother, Keaundra D., reported she heard the iron fall and was told by the older child, A.D.L., that C.L.B. tried to “kiss the iron.”
- DFS removed both children and placed them with their maternal grandmother.
- A physician who examined C.L.B. found the injury healing and observed no signs of abuse, but a medical examiner later opined from photographs that the burn was inconsistent with an accident and appeared intentionally inflicted.
- In the abuse/neglect adjudication, the hearing master excluded a rebuttal medical report from a physician who personally examined the child; the court found physical abuse and medical neglect and continued DFS custody.
- The mother was given a case plan requiring, among other tasks, that she “articulate how the abuse occurred and how she would ensure that it did not occur again.”
- DFS sought termination about one month after the plan was approved, taking the position that despite substantial service compliance, the mother had not admitted intentionally burning the child; DFS stated it would not have sought termination if she admitted doing so.
- After a remand in a prior appeal to allow the rebuttal medical report at a new termination trial, the district court again terminated parental rights to both children, leading to this appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a child-welfare case plan may require a parent to admit conduct that constitutes a crime as a condition of being deemed compliant, consistent with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
2. Whether parental rights may be terminated based on the parent’s refusal to admit criminal conduct when that refusal is treated as case-plan noncompliance.
3. Whether the termination findings under Nevada law were impermissibly based on penalizing the parent’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the termination order and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the case plan, as applied, required the mother to admit to a criminal act to be considered compliant, violating the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- The court concluded the district court erred to the extent it treated the mother’s refusal to admit intentional abuse as noncompliance and relied on that refusal as a basis for termination.

## Legal Principles

- A parent cannot be compelled to admit to a crime as part of a reunification case plan in termination-of-parental-rights proceedings.
- The State may require participation in meaningful services (including therapy and safety-focused treatment), but case-plan compliance and reunification cannot be conditioned on a formal confession to criminal conduct.
- Termination findings of parental fault and best interests may not rest on penalizing a parent’s exercise of the Fifth Amendment privilege.

## Conclusion

The court set constitutional limits on reunification case plans and termination decisions by holding that the State may not condition compliance, reunification, or avoidance of termination on a parent’s compelled admission of criminal abuse.


In re Parental Rights as to A.D.L., 402 P.3d 1280 (Nev. 2017)