Saturday, Sept. 2, 2000 | 3:44 a.m.
Sandra Thompson is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or by e-mail at [email protected]
THE NEVADA Supreme Court overturned 16 years of legal precedent when it reversed a Family Court judge's ruling in a controversial guardianship case.
In a 21-page unanimous decision written by Justice Deborah Agosti, the court said that the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration in any proceeding to terminate parental rights.
That's all that Talia and Sam Zeer had asked the court to do -- look out for the best interests of the child. In this case, it was their 12-year-old daughter, who they have raised since age 2.
The Supreme Court decision is the latest in the Zeers' four-year battle for their daughter. They hope it will put an end to the legal and emotional upheaval they have endured.
"I have suffered with my health and lost four years of my life," Talia says. "This has left a scar for life on my family and myself. The nightmares we have endured will be there forever."
The Supreme Court reversed the order of Judge Dianne Steel, who had initially presided over the Zeers' case. She had denied the Zeers' petition to terminate the rights of their daughter's birth parents. The court noted that Steel failed to apply the statutory presumption of abandonment and erred in excluding certain evidence presented by the Zeers.
Since 1984 the Supreme Court used a standard set forth in Champagne vs. Welfare Division (1984) that required a district court to find jurisdictional grounds to terminate parental rights before it considers the best interests of the child.
The court's Aug. 24 ruling said that "in its place, we adopt a best interest/parental fault standard which requires a district court to consider whether the best interests of the child would be served by the termination and whether parental fault exists."
The court said its "adherence to the Champagne standard has resulted in the improper application of the termination statute." The court also noted that the Legislature, frustrated with the standard, has amended the law to place more emphasis on the best interests of the child.
"It's significant legislation," says Jim Jimmerson, the Zeers' attorney,
Steel says the decision shows that the law is "a living piece of work and it changes."
"It's flexible enough to review itself and make appropriate decisions for the people it serves," she says.
After denying the Zeers' initial motion that would have paved the way for adoption of the girl, Steel recused herself from the case. It then was was reassigned to Judge Bob Lueck, who took little time in deciding that the girl should stay with the Zeers.
According to Talia Zeer, her sister and brother-in-law, Raja and Hikmet Jamil, had given their then-2-year-old daughter to Talia and Sam to raise. The Jamils lived in Iraq. They later contended that because of the Gulf War, they could not travel to the United States and visit their daughter.
Yet Talia showed at the initial Family Court trial that Raja traveled several times here, but did not ask to see the child. Also, the Zeers had changed the girl's name and everyone -- including the Jamil family -- called her by the new name.
The Zeers said they had documents in Arabic showing that the Jamils agreed to the adoption, but Steel would not accept them.
Steel also did not find "clear and convincing evidence" that the Jamils abandoned the child. The Zeers said the Jamils had little or no contact with the girl throughout the years and did not contribute to her support. The Supreme Court, however, said that constitutes a presumption of abandonment under Nevada law.
Talia Zeer says she hopes the Supreme Court ruling "reaches the minds of every judge who holds the fate of a child."
archive
