In Re: Parental Rights as to D.W., N.W., D.W. and C.I.

benefit from the stability and security of the termination of appellants' parental rights. NRS 128.105(1). On appeal, appellants contend that the district court's decision is not justified because appellant Angel S. completed certain counseling requirements in connection with prior neglect proceedings, and both appellants were financially unable to complete required counseling in connection with this neglect proceeding. The record indicates that the district court entered an order determining that respondent was not required to undertake reasonable efforts to return the children to appellants under NRS 432B.393(1). NRS 432B.393 provides that a child welfare agency is not required to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family if a parent abused the child in an extreme or repetitious manner, so as to indicate that returning the child to the home would put the child at risk; or if the child or the siblings of the child have been previously removed from the home and adjudicated as abused or neglected, returned to the home, and then removed from the home again as a result of additional abuse or neglect. See NRS 432B.393(3)(a)(3) and (d). The district court specifically found that the eldest child had suffered terrible physical abuse by appellant Carlin I. and that the child had been previously abused and removed from the home, returned to the home, and subsequently abused. Therefore, respondent was not obligated to assist appellants with the counseling required in association with this abuse and neglect proceeding based on the waiver of reasonable efforts under NRS 432B.393. Additionally, Angel S.'s completion of previous counseling requirements associated with prior neglect proceedings had no impact on the present proceedings that arose from new circumstances of abuse and neglect.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Appellants also contend that the incident resulting in the last removal of the children from the home was an accident and not the result of abuse. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the district court's conclusion that the injuries were sustained as a result of abuse. In re Parental Rights as to D.H., 120 Nev. 422, 428, 92 P.3d 1230, 1234 (2004) (providing that this court will uphold a district court's termination order if it is supported by substantial evidence). Therefore, we conclude that the district court properly terminated appellants' parental rights, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Pieku tue J. Pickering

, J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Steven E. Jones, District Judge, Family Court Division Angel S. Carlin I. Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e