Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Nevada

Nevada. When I think of Nevada, I think of the desert, don’t you? Do you find it interesting to learn that the state’s name, with origins in Spanish, means “snow-capped?” It kind of changes my view of the state. And, after reading through their post-adoption contact agreement statutes, I actually have a better impression of the state as a whole than I had previously kept. Our 35th largest state (population wise from the 2000 census) seems to have some inkling about the topic.

Let’s take a look, shall we?

What may be included in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: 2005 Nev. Stat. Ch. 413
[Sec. 3; new section of Ch. 127]

An agreement that provides for postadoptive contact is enforceable if the agreement is in writing and signed by the parties and is incorporated into an order or decree of adoption.

The identify of a natural parent is not required to be included in the agreement if an agent who may receive court notices for the natural parent is provided in the agreement.

As we’ve now been through two full weeks of post-adoption contact agreement reviews, we can see how this answer doesn’t answer the original question. We didn’t yet ask how or if it is enforceable. We asked what can be included. Louisiana, while not the best-all-around-state, did address this question rather thoroughly by dictating what kinds of contact are covered. Neglecting to tell families what can and cannot be included only leaves room for misinterpretation and potential future problems.

Who may be a party to a postadoption contact agreement?
Citation: 2005 Nev. Stat. Ch. 413
[Sec. 3; new section of Ch. 127]
The natural parent or parents and the prospective adoptive parent or parents of a child to be adopted may enter into an enforceable agreement that provides for postadoptive contact between:

* The child and his natural parent or parents
* The adoptive parent or parents and the natural parent or parents
* Any combination thereof

Again, everyone pause and back away from the nasty-gram button. I didn’t choose the wording for this statute. However, some readers are probably cringing right now at the use of the term natural parents though it has been the long-used term in adoption law. So, look past that, please. And, in case you are also having a case of the Mondays, the law isn’t trying to use two different terms for adoptive parent(s) and birth parent(s). They’re trying to show the singular and plural options for the two groups. I had to read that portion a few times! Ah, Mondays!

What is the role of the court in postadoption contact agreements?
Citation: 2005 Nev. Stat. Ch. 413
[Sec. 3-5; new sections of Ch. 127]
A court that enters an order or decree of adoption that incorporates an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact shall retain jurisdiction to enforce, modify, or terminate the agreement that provides for postadoptive contact until the child reaches 18 years of age, the child becomes emancipated, or the agreement is terminated.

The establishment of an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact does not affect the rights of an adoptive parent as the legal parent of the child.

Each prospective adoptive parent of a child to be adopted who enters into an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact shall notify the court of the existence of the agreement as soon as practicable after the agreement is established, but not later than the time at which the court enters the order or decree of adoption of the child.

Before a court may enter an order or decree of adoption of a child, the court must address in person each prospective adoptive parent, the director of the licensed child-placing agency involved in the adoption proceedings, and any attorney representing a prospective adoptive parent, the child, or the agency involved in the adoption proceedings and inquire whether the person has actual knowledge that the prospective adoptive parent or parents of the child and the natural parent of parents of the child have entered into an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact.

If the court determines that the prospective adoptive parent or parents and the natural parent or parents have entered into an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact, the court shall order the prospective adoptive parent or parents to provide a copy of the agreement to the court and incorporate the agreement into the order or decree of adoption.

Okay! We’re seeing some nice wording in this particular section of law. Like Massachusetts, we see that this contract is no longer valid once the adopted child turns eighteen. However, Nevada took it one step further to say that it’s also null and void if the adopted child becomes emancipated. They also state the obvious (which is sometimes necessary) to remind us that if the contract is terminated, well then, it’s not enforceable. Nothing wrong with getting specific!

Furthermore, while it may seem obvious, simply stating that an agreement doesn’t remove the adoptive parents’ legal rights is probably for the best. We’ve seen with some prior states how vague wording doesn’t serve any greater purpose. And so, if Nevada wants to take up some space and state the obvious, I’m all for it.

I am intrigued, however, as to why the birth parents are not mentioned in needing a face-to-face with the judge to have the post-adoption contact agreement approved. I’m sure this stems from the belief that birth parents should be grateful for any amount of post-adoption contact available. But I think it might be beneficial for a birth parent (or the attorney representing the birth parents) to be present to say, “Yes, I agree with this contract.” It leaves little wiggle-room later for a birth parent to say, “I wasn’t aware as to what I was signing.” Just something to keep in mind.

Are agreements legally enforceable?
Citation: 2005 Nev. Stat. Ch. 413
[Sec. 6 & 7; new sections of Ch. 127]
A natural parent who has entered into an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact may, for good cause shown:

* Petition the court that entered the order or decree of adoption of the child to prove the existence of the agreement that provides for postadoptive contact and to request that the agreement be incorporated into the order or decree of adoption
* During the period set forth below, petition the court to enforce the terms of the agreement that provides for postadoptive contact if the agreement complies with the requirements of this act

An adoptive parent who has entered into an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact may:

* During the period set forth below, petition the court that entered the order or decree of adoption of the child to enforce the terms of the agreement that provides for postadoptive contact if the agreement complies with the requirements of this act
* Petition the court to modify or terminate the agreement that provides for postadoptive contact

Any action to enforce the terms of an agreement that provides for postadoptive contact must be commenced not later than 120 days after the date on which the agreement was breached.

I can get behind a few things here. For example, an action to enforce the terms of an agreement must take place within 120 after the breach of contract (the first time we’ve seen anything like this) is quite interesting. It removes the ability for one party to file a suit in retaliation for something that took place three years ago. (Like a missed visit, for example.) And so that is a unique and most-likely beneficial addition to these statutes.

However, I cannot get behind the fact that only adoptive parents can petition the court to modify or terminate. Birth parents are not afforded the same opportunities, making the relationship unequal. They can, however, petition the court to have the existing contract enforced but not to have things changed. So, on one hand, birth parents are at least receving acknowledgment that they shouldn’t get randomly forgotten but, on the other hand, they don’t have any recourse of action if the current agreement isn’t working right.

How may an agreement be terminated or modified?
Citation: 2005 Nev. Stat. Ch. 413
[Sec. 8; new section of Ch. 127]
An agreement that provides for postadoptive contact may only be modified or terminated by an adoptive parent petitioning the court that entered the order of decree that included the agreement. The court may grant a request to modify or terminate the agreement only if:

* The adoptive parent petitioning the court for the modification or termination establishes that:
o A change in circumstances warrants the modification or termination.
o The contact provided for in the agreement is no longer in the best interests of the child.
* Each party to the agreement consents to the modification or termination.

If an adoptive parent petitions the court for a modification or termination of an agreement pursuant to this section:

* There is a presumption that the modification or termination is in the best interests of the child.
* The court may consider the wishes of the child involved in the agreement.

Any order issued to modify an agreement that provides postadoptive contact:

* May limit, restrict, condition, or decrease contact between the parties involved in the agreement
* May not expand or increase the contact between the parties involved in the agreement or place any new obligation on an adoptive parent

For the second time we see the inability of the court to expand or increase contact. I’m interested, however, if the child was to say (usually courts make the inclusion of the child at age twelve), “Hey, I’d like more contact,” if the courts would agree to expanding contact or if it would just be outside the bounds of the agreement. We haven’t seen that addressed in these states that refuse to expand contact. And so, I just bring up the question because I’m all about questions.

Again, I’m not in agreement with the fact that birth parents cannot petition the court for modification or termination but that’s the facts with this state.

And so, Nevada leaves us with a mostly-positive outlook. Limitations are set. Wording is specific. And though first families are left out of the ability to make changes, they can ask to have the courts enforce what does exist. Much better than some states, wouldn’t you say?

//
For more, read:

1. Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Nebraska.

2. Post-Adoption Contact Agreements: Montana.

3. Information from the State Statute Search at ChildWelfare.gov in November 2007.

//
Totally Awesome Photo Credit.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.