Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the findings required for a minor to seek Special Immigrant Juvenile status, particularly whether reunification with a parent is not viable due to abandonment. The court held that viability requires consideration of the parent-child relationship history, conditions in the child's foreign country, and whether reunification would be workable or practicable. It affirmed the custody award, reversed the denial of the SIJ predicate findings, and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What legal framework governs whether reunification with a parent is not viable under NRS 3.2203(3)(b) for purposes of Special Immigrant Juvenile findings?
- Did the district court err by treating the inquiry as whether reunification might be possible in the future rather than whether reunification was practicable or workable based on the parent-child relationship and conditions in the child's country of origin?
- Whether the district court properly awarded Lopez primary physical and legal custody.
Holdings
- For purposes of Special Immigrant Juvenile findings, reunification is not viable when, considering abandonment, abuse, neglect, or a similar basis under state law, reunification is not practicable or workable. The court must consider the history of the parent-child relationship, the conditions on the ground in the child's foreign country, and whether returning the child to the parent would be workable or practicable.
- The district court erred by declining to make the finding that reunification was not viable because it focused on whether reunification might be possible in the future rather than applying the required viability framework.
- The district court's award of primary physical and legal custody to Lopez was affirmed.
Key quotations
“For the purpose of SIJ findings, a district court addressing whether reunification is not viable should consider the history of the parent- child relationship, the conditions on the ground in the child's foreign country, and whether returning the child to the parent in the foreign country would be workable or practicable due to abandonment, abuse, or neglect.” (2020 NV 54, at 8)
“These cases provide an instructive legal framework for evaluating the SIJ reunification prong, and we therefore adopt the approach discussed in J.U., 176 A.3d at 140-43, and Romero, 205 A.3d at 915.” (2020 NV 54, at 6)
Factual background
Lopez gave birth to K.M.L. in El Salvador in 2007 and informed Serbellon Portillo of the pregnancy and birth. The father had no communication with K.M.L., had not sought contact, and had provided no support. K.M.L. lived in El Salvador with Lopez's mother until 2017, when the grandmother could no longer care for him and Lopez feared for his safety because of gang activity, including the killing of neighbors. K.M.L. then relocated to the United States to live with Lopez.
Procedural history
Lopez filed a custody action seeking primary physical and legal custody of K.M.L. and predicate findings necessary for the child to seek Special Immigrant Juvenile status. The district court awarded Lopez custody but refused to find that reunification with Serbellon Portillo was not viable because it could not predict whether the father might seek reunification in the future. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the custody determination, reversed the denial of the SIJ predicate findings, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion and apply the proper framework for determining whether reunification is not viable under NRS 3.2203(3)(b), while the custody award remains affirmed.