## Facts

- A county child-welfare agency removed four minor children from their mother after repeated reports that she lacked adequate housing and could not provide stable care.
- The agency implemented a reunification case plan requiring the mother to obtain stable housing and employment and participate in mental-health services, and it provided extensive assistance (therapy referrals, job-search help, temporary housing funds, supplies, and housing/utility program support, including a Section 8 voucher).
- Over roughly two years, the mother’s compliance remained minimal, including frequent moves among approximately 15 residences, short-lived employment (often ending within about a month, including voluntary quits), missed therapy and services, and failure to complete applications for available assistance.
- The agency petitioned to terminate parental rights, alleging failure of parental adjustment, failure to remedy the conditions leading to removal, token efforts toward reunification, and that termination served the children’s best interests.
- After a termination hearing, the district court found clear and convincing evidence of parental fault (including token efforts and failure of parental adjustment) and found termination in the children’s best interests.
- The mother appealed, arguing the termination effectively rested on poverty and housing insecurity, and that poverty alone cannot justify termination.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported statutory grounds for termination based on failure of parental adjustment and token efforts, where the parent’s instability was closely connected to poverty and housing insecurity.
2. Whether the termination order impermissibly rested solely on poverty rather than parental fault.
3. Whether the district court’s best-interests finding was supported given the children’s need for stability and permanency.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the termination order.
- The Court held the record supported, by clear and convincing evidence, findings that the mother failed to adjust her circumstances and made only token efforts toward reunification despite substantial services and opportunities.
- The Court rejected the argument that termination was based solely on poverty, concluding the basis was persistent noncompliance and failure to engage in offered assistance.
- The Court upheld the best-interests determination, emphasizing the children’s prolonged out-of-home placement and need for a stable, permanent home within a reasonable time.

## Legal Principles

- Termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence of at least one statutory ground establishing parental fault and a separate finding that termination is in the child’s best interests.
- Poverty alone is insufficient to terminate parental rights; courts must distinguish financial hardship from neglect, unfitness, or failure to remedy removal conditions.
- When an agency provides substantial reunification services, a parent’s persistent nonparticipation, instability, and failure to follow through may constitute token efforts and support a finding of failure of parental adjustment.
- Appellate review gives deference to the district court’s credibility and best-interests determinations when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed termination because the mother, despite extensive reunification assistance, made only token efforts and failed to achieve minimally adequate stability within a reasonable time; the decision rested on parental fault and the children’s best interests, not poverty alone.


In re R.T., 396 P.3d 802 (Nev. 2017)