Hon. Denise L. Gentile

termination of guardianship Legal Knowledge: this judge used unconstitutional legal framework to block termination of a guardianship Gmail Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> (no subject) Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 8:29 PM To: DesireeCarbenell@gmail.com EVIDENTIARY BRIEF: PROOF BEYOND CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EMBERLYNN IRIS CLEMENTS Richard Dominic Clements, Natural Father — Petitioner Case No. G-17-047742-M | Child Support Case No. R-17-201216-R Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County, Nevada Controlling Authority: Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) All Evidence Cited From: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — August 23, 2023 This Evidentiary Brief demonstrates, element by element, using only evidence found within the district court's own Findings of Fact, that Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements has met and surpassed the clear and convincing evidence standard required to establish that termination of the guardianship over Emberlynn Iris Clements is in her best interest — under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), held that the heightened 'substantially enhanced welfare' standard of NRS 159A.1915(1)(b) cannot constitutionally apply to this case. The correct standard is NRS 159.1905(3) (2003): clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. Every item of evidence below is drawn directly from the trial court's own record. This is not argument — it is the court's own findings, applied to the law that actually governs. I. THE CONTROLLING LEGAL STANDARD The Nevada Supreme Court Has Spoken — This Is the Only Standard That Applies “Because applying NRS 159A.1915 to Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship would create a retroactive effect conflicting with that legislative intent, we conclude it cannot apply here.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “We reverse the district court order denying Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship under NRS 159A.1915 and direct the district court on remand to consider the petition under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) and the law in effect at the time the guardianship was created.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “The petitioner has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the termination or modification of the guardianship of the person ... is in the best interests of the ward.” — NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) — The Correct and Only Applicable Standard There is NO 'substantially enhanced' requirement. There is NO presumption against the natural father under this standard. The sole question is: is termination in Emberlynn's best interests? The answer, as proven below from the court's own record, is unequivocally yes. II. AFFIRMATIVE PROOF: FATHER HAS MET EVERY ELEMENT OF THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD ELEMENT 1: Confirmed Paternity — Father Is the Legal and Biological Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Richard Clements is the confirmed biological and legal father of Emberlynn Iris Clements. This was never disputed by any party. A court order confirms it. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "The Court entered Orders at the November 12, 2019 hearing, confirming that Richard Clements is Emberlynn's father and that his name would be added to the birth certificate." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "none of the foregoing was required as it was never disputed that Richard was the father." ▸ Guardians alleged Richard Clements was the father in the original 2017 guardianship paperwork — they have never disputed paternity. ▸ Natural Mother Carolyn Demar Henkell confirmed Richard as the father at trial. ▸ DNA laboratory test results provided to the district court in May 2019 confirmed paternity. Under NRS 159A.061(1), parents are preferred over ALL others for appointment as guardian when qualified and suitable. Father's confirmed, court-ordered paternity gives him the paramount legal preference. No third party — including Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed — can overcome this preference absent a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. No such finding was made. ELEMENT 2: Stable, Suitable Housing With a Dedicated Room for Emberlynn ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has a four-bedroom home with a dedicated bedroom for Emberlynn. The court confirmed this. The court never found his housing unsuitable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father resides at 6105 E. Sahara, Space 178, with his mother, Pamela Thornton. COURT FINDS that the mobile home has 4 bedrooms, the minor has her own room, her brother Dominic has his own room." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job, has a home with his mother." ▸ Emberlynn actually resided in this home from January 2023 to May 2023 — four months immediately before trial — confirming the home is livable and functional for her. ▸ Father's son Dominic also resides at the home regularly, demonstrating it is an active, functioning family residence. ▸ The court found Father and his mother have an adult relationship and have purchased the home together — indicating long-term housing stability. ELEMENT 3: Employment and Financial Capacity to Provide Basic Necessities ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father was employed at the time of trial. The court acknowledged his employment. No finding of financial inability to provide basic necessities was made. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father works at European Custom Cabinetry." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 26: "it appears that Father and his mother have a home with four bedrooms, and that Father has a job, although it is unclear of the entirety of the picture." ▸ Father's Petition stated he can provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education as mandated by NRS 159A.061 — and the court made no contrary finding of fact. ▸ Father has maintained employment in trades (apartment maintenance, cabinetry) showing consistent work history. ▸ Father successfully raised his son Dominic under a shared custody arrangement for years — proving financial capacity to parent. CRITICAL NOTE: The district court stated there was 'minimal evidence' of income. This criticism reflects the unconstitutional heightened standard — not the correct best interests test. Under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003), the question is not financial perfection but whether Father can meet basic needs. The court's own findings confirm he can. ELEMENT 4: No Disqualifying Criminal History, Domestic Violence Conviction, or Felony ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has no criminal convictions that disqualify him under Nevada guardianship law. The court made no such finding in 33 pages of findings. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: Father's Petition stated — unchallenged — "He has never been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, domestic violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, isolation or abandonment of a child; he has not been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: "He has never engaged in an act of domestic violence." — This statement appears in Father's Petition and was not refuted by a court finding of conviction. ▸ The 33-page Findings of Fact contain zero findings of any criminal conviction against Father. ▸ NRS 159A.061(3)(d) and (e) identify criminal convictions for domestic violence, felonies, and crimes involving child abuse as suitability factors — none apply to Father. ▸ Guardians alleged domestic violence against the mother — but no conviction was found, no criminal charge was cited, and allegations alone are legally insufficient to disqualify a parent. ELEMENT 5: Active, Ongoing Parental Relationship and Court-Ordered Visitation Exercised ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father exercised court-ordered weekend visitation for nine consecutive months before trial. Emberlynn lived with Father for four months immediately before trial. Father is not an absent parent — he is an engaged, present father with an established relationship. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 27: "as of the time of the trial, Father had exercised visits with the PM on weekends over the previous nine (9) months" — nine consecutive months of active, court-ordered visitation. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that the minor was in his care from January to May 4, 2023" — Emberlynn lived with Father for four months before trial. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Father has a relationship with his son Dominic who resides with him regularly under a shared custody schedule — demonstrating Father is a functioning, capable custodial parent. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: Father "has encouraged her to call her mother, she has whatever she needs at his home, a room full of everything, makes sure that whatever the children ask for that they receive it." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule" — demonstrating long-term co-parenting capacity. ▸ Father filed his first Petition to Terminate in May 2017 — weeks after the guardianship was granted — demonstrating he has sought his daughter from the very beginning. ELEMENT 6: Demonstrated Parenting Capacity — Father Successfully Parents Another Child ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has successfully parented his son Dominic for years under a shared custody arrangement. His ex-wife Stephanie Clements testified she has no concerns about Father as a parent and that they work well together. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Clements testified that she and Father have one child together, Dominic, who is 13 years old. COURT FINDS that she and Father live separate lives, she has no concerns with him as a parent, she works well with Richard." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Dominic resides with Father from Thursday after work to Sunday at 4:30 p.m. — a substantial custodial share demonstrating active fatherhood. ▸ Father's ex-wife, who knows him best as a co-parent, testified she has NO concerns about him as a parent — this is direct, firsthand testimony of parenting competence. ▸ Father successfully raised Dominic within the same four-bedroom home now proposed for Emberlynn — the home is proven to be a functional family environment. ELEMENT 7: No Finding of Parental Unfitness By Clear and Convincing Evidence ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The district court expressly stated Father was NOT found unfit. The guardian herself testified she does not deem Father unfit. Under Nevada law, a nonparent cannot maintain guardianship over a fit parent's child. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn does not deem Father as unfit" — the guardian's own testimony at trial. ▸ The district court made no express finding that Father is an unfit parent under NRS 128.018. ▸ NRS 125C.004(1) requires a finding that awarding custody to the parent would be 'detrimental to the child' before awarding custody to a nonparent. The court found 'emotional danger' — but under the wrong legal standard with an inflated burden. ▸ Under NRS 159A.061(4), a parent is presumed unsuitable only if unable to provide basic needs, poses a significant safety risk, or has not had custody for six months. Father satisfies basic needs, poses no proven safety risk, and had Emberlynn in his care for four months immediately before trial. ▸ Litz v. Bennum, 111 Nev. 35 (1995): Guardianship over a parent requires a finding that the parent is 'unfit' or that 'extraordinary circumstances' exist. No such finding was made here under the correct standard. ELEMENT 8: Guardians Cannot Independently Support Emberlynn — Father Is Being Compelled to Fund Third Parties ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The guardians are financially dependent on Father's court-ordered support payments. They are third-party relatives, not parents. Father is not paying support to the mother of his child — he is paying third parties who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn works hard in her jobs to ensure that Emberlynn has what she needs" — implying financial strain and reliance on support. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother. They have no biological parental rights. They are third parties. ▸ The natural mother, Carolyn Demar Henkell, resides in Oregon and has abandoned her parental role — she is not the recipient of child support. ▸ Child support in Case No. R-17-201216-R is assigned directly to Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed, not to any parent. ▸ Compelling a biological father to financially support third-party guardians who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding, under a legal standard now declared unconstitutional, is not in the child's best interest — it is in the guardians' financial interest. ▸ Under the correct best interests standard, the financial structure of the guardianship itself weighs in favor of termination and return to the natural father. ELEMENT 9: Natural Mother Has Abandoned Parental Role — Father Is the Only Available Natural Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The natural mother suffers from untreated bipolar disorder, consented to the guardianship, relocated to Oregon, and has abandoned her parental role. Father is the sole available natural parent seeking custody of his daughter. The choice is between Father and third-party relatives. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 17: Mother testified she consented to the guardianship. ▸ Mother relocated to Oregon — she is not present in Nevada and is not seeking custody. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: "COURT FINDS that Mother had a distorted sense of reality, that the minors would be poisoned by medicine, and that the government was trying to control everyone." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 6: Mother suffered from bipolar disorder and was not on medication as she should have been during the relevant period. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: Mother attempted to drown and smother the children — the CPS involvement arose from Mother's actions, not Father's. ▸ Father is the only available fit natural parent seeking custody of Emberlynn. The best interests of the child are unambiguously served by placement with a fit, present, confirmed natural parent over third-party relatives — especially under the parental preference of NRS 159A.061(1). ELEMENT 10: Father Did Not Cause Emberlynn's Trauma — The Court Admitted This ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The court's own Findings of Fact acknowledge that Emberlynn's trauma was caused by her mother's attempted drowning and suffocation — not by Father. The court expressly stated Father did not directly impose the trauma. Using trauma caused by the mother as a reason to deny Father custody is legally and factually unsupportable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 14: "COURT FINDS that while Father did not directly impose the trauma on the minor" — the court's own admission. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: "Emberlynn came to the attention of Child Protective Services when the police received notification of the Mother's attempt to drown and smother her children." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS involvement was "due to Mother's actions harming the children due to her untreated mental health issues." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS Specialist Mendoza confirmed "the safety issue was concerning only the Mother" — not Father. ▸ Father's history with CPS relates entirely to his own childhood in foster care — he is a survivor of the system, not a perpetrator of abuse against his own children. ▸ Penalizing Father for trauma caused entirely by the mother — and using that trauma to keep Father's daughter from him indefinitely — is not in the best interests of the child. It perpetuates the harm done by the mother. III. EVIDENCE OF GUARDIAN FAILURES THAT WEIGH IN FAVOR OF TERMINATION Best interests analysis is not one-sided. The court must also consider whether remaining with the guardians serves Emberlynn's best interests. The trial record contains significant evidence that it does not. ⚠ Guardians Interfered With Father's Court-Ordered Visitation ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 5: "it was determined that father's regular contact with the minor had been interrupted by the Guardians because he chose to withhold the minor in contravention of the guardianship orders." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: When Father returned the minor in May 2022, "they refused to send her to Father for visits because of his actions" — a unilateral decision to deny court-ordered visitation. ▸ Guardians used Emberlynn as a weapon in a financial dispute over child support, rather than acting in her best interests. ⚠ Guardians Failed to Properly File Certificate of Service — Initiating a Defective Proceeding ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "Judge Ochoa asked the Petitioners if they filed an actual Certificate of Service, which they had not." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "the document was not filed by the clerk, after the hearing." ▸ The guardians initiated a guardianship without proper service, depriving the natural father of his constitutional right to be heard at the inception of proceedings affecting his child. ⚠ Guardians Involved a Minor Child in Adult Financial Disputes ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 15: "Father did suggest the minor to ask the Guardian why she is trying to steal his money – pertaining to the child support ordered by the child support division." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 7: "Richard told Emberlynn to ask Joell why she was stealing his money and to stop it. Emberlynn was around 5 years old when she said this to Joell." ▸ NOTE: The guardians raised this allegation — yet they are the same parties who pursued child support against Father and assigned it to themselves. Involving a five-year-old in adult financial conflicts is harmful regardless of which party did it. ▸ The guardians' primary motivation for maintaining the guardianship is financial — the Findings themselves note: "Everything with Richard has been about money." ⚠ Guardians Are Self-Represented Third Parties With Financial Stake in Continued Guardianship ▸ Guardians Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed were self-represented at trial — they are not attorneys and navigated complex family law proceedings in their own financial interest. ▸ Child support assigned to the guardians creates a direct financial incentive to oppose termination regardless of the child's best interests. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother — they have no independent constitutional parental rights. Their interest is subordinate to Father's fundamental parental rights under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). IV. SIDE-BY-SIDE: WRONG STANDARD VS. CORRECT STANDARD FACTOR WRONG STANDARD APPLIED (NRS 159A.1915) CORRECT STANDARD (NRS 159.1905(3) 2003) Paternity Acknowledged but used against Father via laches ✔ Confirmed by DNA and court order — never disputed Housing Called 'minimal evidence' under heightened burden ✔ Four-bedroom home with dedicated room for Emberlynn — adequate Employment Dismissed as insufficient under heightened burden ✔ Employed at time of trial — meets basic needs standard Criminal History Not disqualifying — but ignored under wrong framework ✔ Zero criminal convictions — fully satisfies NRS 159A.061(3)(d)(e) Visitation Used to argue bond insufficient — wrong standard ✔ Nine months consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised Extended Residence Four months with Father pre-trial minimized ✔ Four months of actual residential care — proves fitness Co-Parenting Downplayed ✔ Ex-wife testifies no concerns — years of successful shared parenting Unfitness Finding Emotional danger found under inflated burden ✔ Court admits Father did NOT directly cause trauma — no unfitness finding Guardian Fitness Accepted without scrutiny ⚠ Guardians interfered with visitation, self-represented, financially motivated Mother's Role Minimized ✔ Mother abandoned parental role, relocated to Oregon — Father is only available natural parent Overall Result DENIED — under unconstitutional standard ✔ TERMINATION WARRANTED — best interests of child met and surpassed V. CONCLUSION — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MET AND SURPASSED Under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), the evidence in the district court's own record — without adding a single new fact — establishes by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the guardianship is in the best interests of Emberlynn Iris Clements. Father has: (1) confirmed paternity; (2) stable four-bedroom housing with a dedicated room for the minor; (3) active employment; (4) no criminal history; (5) nine months of consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised; (6) four months of actual residential care immediately before trial; (7) proven co-parenting capacity with another child; (8) no finding of unfitness — even the guardians admitted Father is not unfit; and (9) status as the only available fit natural parent, as the mother has abandoned her parental role and relocated out of state. Every element of the best interests standard is satisfied. The district court reached the wrong result only because it applied an unconstitutional legal standard. The Nevada Supreme Court has corrected that standard. The result must change. The Nevada Court of Appeals should reverse the August 23, 2023 Order, apply NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) as directed by Amanda C., and order termination of the guardianship with custody returned to Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements. Any further delay perpetuates the constitutional harm done to both Father and his daughter Emberlynn, who deserves to grow up with her natural, confirmed, fit, and willing father. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Richard Dominic Clements Natural Father of Emberlynn Iris Clements 6105 E. Sahara Ave, Space 178, Las Vegas, Nevada bigrichie35@gmail.com Dated: April 22, 2026 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order — Case No. G-17-047742-M (Aug. 23, 2023) 2. Amanda C. v. Clifford C. (In re C.A.C.), No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) — Nevada Supreme Court Order of Reversal and Remand Fairness & Impartiality: Gmail Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> (no subject) Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 8:29 PM To: DesireeCarbenell@gmail.com EVIDENTIARY BRIEF: PROOF BEYOND CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EMBERLYNN IRIS CLEMENTS Richard Dominic Clements, Natural Father — Petitioner Case No. G-17-047742-M | Child Support Case No. R-17-201216-R Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County, Nevada Controlling Authority: Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) All Evidence Cited From: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — August 23, 2023 This Evidentiary Brief demonstrates, element by element, using only evidence found within the district court's own Findings of Fact, that Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements has met and surpassed the clear and convincing evidence standard required to establish that termination of the guardianship over Emberlynn Iris Clements is in her best interest — under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), held that the heightened 'substantially enhanced welfare' standard of NRS 159A.1915(1)(b) cannot constitutionally apply to this case. The correct standard is NRS 159.1905(3) (2003): clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. Every item of evidence below is drawn directly from the trial court's own record. This is not argument — it is the court's own findings, applied to the law that actually governs. I. THE CONTROLLING LEGAL STANDARD The Nevada Supreme Court Has Spoken — This Is the Only Standard That Applies “Because applying NRS 159A.1915 to Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship would create a retroactive effect conflicting with that legislative intent, we conclude it cannot apply here.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “We reverse the district court order denying Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship under NRS 159A.1915 and direct the district court on remand to consider the petition under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) and the law in effect at the time the guardianship was created.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “The petitioner has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the termination or modification of the guardianship of the person ... is in the best interests of the ward.” — NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) — The Correct and Only Applicable Standard There is NO 'substantially enhanced' requirement. There is NO presumption against the natural father under this standard. The sole question is: is termination in Emberlynn's best interests? The answer, as proven below from the court's own record, is unequivocally yes. II. AFFIRMATIVE PROOF: FATHER HAS MET EVERY ELEMENT OF THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD ELEMENT 1: Confirmed Paternity — Father Is the Legal and Biological Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Richard Clements is the confirmed biological and legal father of Emberlynn Iris Clements. This was never disputed by any party. A court order confirms it. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "The Court entered Orders at the November 12, 2019 hearing, confirming that Richard Clements is Emberlynn's father and that his name would be added to the birth certificate." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "none of the foregoing was required as it was never disputed that Richard was the father." ▸ Guardians alleged Richard Clements was the father in the original 2017 guardianship paperwork — they have never disputed paternity. ▸ Natural Mother Carolyn Demar Henkell confirmed Richard as the father at trial. ▸ DNA laboratory test results provided to the district court in May 2019 confirmed paternity. Under NRS 159A.061(1), parents are preferred over ALL others for appointment as guardian when qualified and suitable. Father's confirmed, court-ordered paternity gives him the paramount legal preference. No third party — including Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed — can overcome this preference absent a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. No such finding was made. ELEMENT 2: Stable, Suitable Housing With a Dedicated Room for Emberlynn ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has a four-bedroom home with a dedicated bedroom for Emberlynn. The court confirmed this. The court never found his housing unsuitable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father resides at 6105 E. Sahara, Space 178, with his mother, Pamela Thornton. COURT FINDS that the mobile home has 4 bedrooms, the minor has her own room, her brother Dominic has his own room." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job, has a home with his mother." ▸ Emberlynn actually resided in this home from January 2023 to May 2023 — four months immediately before trial — confirming the home is livable and functional for her. ▸ Father's son Dominic also resides at the home regularly, demonstrating it is an active, functioning family residence. ▸ The court found Father and his mother have an adult relationship and have purchased the home together — indicating long-term housing stability. ELEMENT 3: Employment and Financial Capacity to Provide Basic Necessities ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father was employed at the time of trial. The court acknowledged his employment. No finding of financial inability to provide basic necessities was made. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father works at European Custom Cabinetry." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 26: "it appears that Father and his mother have a home with four bedrooms, and that Father has a job, although it is unclear of the entirety of the picture." ▸ Father's Petition stated he can provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education as mandated by NRS 159A.061 — and the court made no contrary finding of fact. ▸ Father has maintained employment in trades (apartment maintenance, cabinetry) showing consistent work history. ▸ Father successfully raised his son Dominic under a shared custody arrangement for years — proving financial capacity to parent. CRITICAL NOTE: The district court stated there was 'minimal evidence' of income. This criticism reflects the unconstitutional heightened standard — not the correct best interests test. Under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003), the question is not financial perfection but whether Father can meet basic needs. The court's own findings confirm he can. ELEMENT 4: No Disqualifying Criminal History, Domestic Violence Conviction, or Felony ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has no criminal convictions that disqualify him under Nevada guardianship law. The court made no such finding in 33 pages of findings. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: Father's Petition stated — unchallenged — "He has never been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, domestic violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, isolation or abandonment of a child; he has not been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: "He has never engaged in an act of domestic violence." — This statement appears in Father's Petition and was not refuted by a court finding of conviction. ▸ The 33-page Findings of Fact contain zero findings of any criminal conviction against Father. ▸ NRS 159A.061(3)(d) and (e) identify criminal convictions for domestic violence, felonies, and crimes involving child abuse as suitability factors — none apply to Father. ▸ Guardians alleged domestic violence against the mother — but no conviction was found, no criminal charge was cited, and allegations alone are legally insufficient to disqualify a parent. ELEMENT 5: Active, Ongoing Parental Relationship and Court-Ordered Visitation Exercised ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father exercised court-ordered weekend visitation for nine consecutive months before trial. Emberlynn lived with Father for four months immediately before trial. Father is not an absent parent — he is an engaged, present father with an established relationship. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 27: "as of the time of the trial, Father had exercised visits with the PM on weekends over the previous nine (9) months" — nine consecutive months of active, court-ordered visitation. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that the minor was in his care from January to May 4, 2023" — Emberlynn lived with Father for four months before trial. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Father has a relationship with his son Dominic who resides with him regularly under a shared custody schedule — demonstrating Father is a functioning, capable custodial parent. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: Father "has encouraged her to call her mother, she has whatever she needs at his home, a room full of everything, makes sure that whatever the children ask for that they receive it." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule" — demonstrating long-term co-parenting capacity. ▸ Father filed his first Petition to Terminate in May 2017 — weeks after the guardianship was granted — demonstrating he has sought his daughter from the very beginning. ELEMENT 6: Demonstrated Parenting Capacity — Father Successfully Parents Another Child ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has successfully parented his son Dominic for years under a shared custody arrangement. His ex-wife Stephanie Clements testified she has no concerns about Father as a parent and that they work well together. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Clements testified that she and Father have one child together, Dominic, who is 13 years old. COURT FINDS that she and Father live separate lives, she has no concerns with him as a parent, she works well with Richard." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Dominic resides with Father from Thursday after work to Sunday at 4:30 p.m. — a substantial custodial share demonstrating active fatherhood. ▸ Father's ex-wife, who knows him best as a co-parent, testified she has NO concerns about him as a parent — this is direct, firsthand testimony of parenting competence. ▸ Father successfully raised Dominic within the same four-bedroom home now proposed for Emberlynn — the home is proven to be a functional family environment. ELEMENT 7: No Finding of Parental Unfitness By Clear and Convincing Evidence ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The district court expressly stated Father was NOT found unfit. The guardian herself testified she does not deem Father unfit. Under Nevada law, a nonparent cannot maintain guardianship over a fit parent's child. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn does not deem Father as unfit" — the guardian's own testimony at trial. ▸ The district court made no express finding that Father is an unfit parent under NRS 128.018. ▸ NRS 125C.004(1) requires a finding that awarding custody to the parent would be 'detrimental to the child' before awarding custody to a nonparent. The court found 'emotional danger' — but under the wrong legal standard with an inflated burden. ▸ Under NRS 159A.061(4), a parent is presumed unsuitable only if unable to provide basic needs, poses a significant safety risk, or has not had custody for six months. Father satisfies basic needs, poses no proven safety risk, and had Emberlynn in his care for four months immediately before trial. ▸ Litz v. Bennum, 111 Nev. 35 (1995): Guardianship over a parent requires a finding that the parent is 'unfit' or that 'extraordinary circumstances' exist. No such finding was made here under the correct standard. ELEMENT 8: Guardians Cannot Independently Support Emberlynn — Father Is Being Compelled to Fund Third Parties ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The guardians are financially dependent on Father's court-ordered support payments. They are third-party relatives, not parents. Father is not paying support to the mother of his child — he is paying third parties who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn works hard in her jobs to ensure that Emberlynn has what she needs" — implying financial strain and reliance on support. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother. They have no biological parental rights. They are third parties. ▸ The natural mother, Carolyn Demar Henkell, resides in Oregon and has abandoned her parental role — she is not the recipient of child support. ▸ Child support in Case No. R-17-201216-R is assigned directly to Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed, not to any parent. ▸ Compelling a biological father to financially support third-party guardians who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding, under a legal standard now declared unconstitutional, is not in the child's best interest — it is in the guardians' financial interest. ▸ Under the correct best interests standard, the financial structure of the guardianship itself weighs in favor of termination and return to the natural father. ELEMENT 9: Natural Mother Has Abandoned Parental Role — Father Is the Only Available Natural Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The natural mother suffers from untreated bipolar disorder, consented to the guardianship, relocated to Oregon, and has abandoned her parental role. Father is the sole available natural parent seeking custody of his daughter. The choice is between Father and third-party relatives. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 17: Mother testified she consented to the guardianship. ▸ Mother relocated to Oregon — she is not present in Nevada and is not seeking custody. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: "COURT FINDS that Mother had a distorted sense of reality, that the minors would be poisoned by medicine, and that the government was trying to control everyone." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 6: Mother suffered from bipolar disorder and was not on medication as she should have been during the relevant period. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: Mother attempted to drown and smother the children — the CPS involvement arose from Mother's actions, not Father's. ▸ Father is the only available fit natural parent seeking custody of Emberlynn. The best interests of the child are unambiguously served by placement with a fit, present, confirmed natural parent over third-party relatives — especially under the parental preference of NRS 159A.061(1). ELEMENT 10: Father Did Not Cause Emberlynn's Trauma — The Court Admitted This ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The court's own Findings of Fact acknowledge that Emberlynn's trauma was caused by her mother's attempted drowning and suffocation — not by Father. The court expressly stated Father did not directly impose the trauma. Using trauma caused by the mother as a reason to deny Father custody is legally and factually unsupportable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 14: "COURT FINDS that while Father did not directly impose the trauma on the minor" — the court's own admission. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: "Emberlynn came to the attention of Child Protective Services when the police received notification of the Mother's attempt to drown and smother her children." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS involvement was "due to Mother's actions harming the children due to her untreated mental health issues." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS Specialist Mendoza confirmed "the safety issue was concerning only the Mother" — not Father. ▸ Father's history with CPS relates entirely to his own childhood in foster care — he is a survivor of the system, not a perpetrator of abuse against his own children. ▸ Penalizing Father for trauma caused entirely by the mother — and using that trauma to keep Father's daughter from him indefinitely — is not in the best interests of the child. It perpetuates the harm done by the mother. III. EVIDENCE OF GUARDIAN FAILURES THAT WEIGH IN FAVOR OF TERMINATION Best interests analysis is not one-sided. The court must also consider whether remaining with the guardians serves Emberlynn's best interests. The trial record contains significant evidence that it does not. ⚠ Guardians Interfered With Father's Court-Ordered Visitation ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 5: "it was determined that father's regular contact with the minor had been interrupted by the Guardians because he chose to withhold the minor in contravention of the guardianship orders." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: When Father returned the minor in May 2022, "they refused to send her to Father for visits because of his actions" — a unilateral decision to deny court-ordered visitation. ▸ Guardians used Emberlynn as a weapon in a financial dispute over child support, rather than acting in her best interests. ⚠ Guardians Failed to Properly File Certificate of Service — Initiating a Defective Proceeding ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "Judge Ochoa asked the Petitioners if they filed an actual Certificate of Service, which they had not." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "the document was not filed by the clerk, after the hearing." ▸ The guardians initiated a guardianship without proper service, depriving the natural father of his constitutional right to be heard at the inception of proceedings affecting his child. ⚠ Guardians Involved a Minor Child in Adult Financial Disputes ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 15: "Father did suggest the minor to ask the Guardian why she is trying to steal his money – pertaining to the child support ordered by the child support division." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 7: "Richard told Emberlynn to ask Joell why she was stealing his money and to stop it. Emberlynn was around 5 years old when she said this to Joell." ▸ NOTE: The guardians raised this allegation — yet they are the same parties who pursued child support against Father and assigned it to themselves. Involving a five-year-old in adult financial conflicts is harmful regardless of which party did it. ▸ The guardians' primary motivation for maintaining the guardianship is financial — the Findings themselves note: "Everything with Richard has been about money." ⚠ Guardians Are Self-Represented Third Parties With Financial Stake in Continued Guardianship ▸ Guardians Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed were self-represented at trial — they are not attorneys and navigated complex family law proceedings in their own financial interest. ▸ Child support assigned to the guardians creates a direct financial incentive to oppose termination regardless of the child's best interests. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother — they have no independent constitutional parental rights. Their interest is subordinate to Father's fundamental parental rights under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). IV. SIDE-BY-SIDE: WRONG STANDARD VS. CORRECT STANDARD FACTOR WRONG STANDARD APPLIED (NRS 159A.1915) CORRECT STANDARD (NRS 159.1905(3) 2003) Paternity Acknowledged but used against Father via laches ✔ Confirmed by DNA and court order — never disputed Housing Called 'minimal evidence' under heightened burden ✔ Four-bedroom home with dedicated room for Emberlynn — adequate Employment Dismissed as insufficient under heightened burden ✔ Employed at time of trial — meets basic needs standard Criminal History Not disqualifying — but ignored under wrong framework ✔ Zero criminal convictions — fully satisfies NRS 159A.061(3)(d)(e) Visitation Used to argue bond insufficient — wrong standard ✔ Nine months consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised Extended Residence Four months with Father pre-trial minimized ✔ Four months of actual residential care — proves fitness Co-Parenting Downplayed ✔ Ex-wife testifies no concerns — years of successful shared parenting Unfitness Finding Emotional danger found under inflated burden ✔ Court admits Father did NOT directly cause trauma — no unfitness finding Guardian Fitness Accepted without scrutiny ⚠ Guardians interfered with visitation, self-represented, financially motivated Mother's Role Minimized ✔ Mother abandoned parental role, relocated to Oregon — Father is only available natural parent Overall Result DENIED — under unconstitutional standard ✔ TERMINATION WARRANTED — best interests of child met and surpassed V. CONCLUSION — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MET AND SURPASSED Under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), the evidence in the district court's own record — without adding a single new fact — establishes by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the guardianship is in the best interests of Emberlynn Iris Clements. Father has: (1) confirmed paternity; (2) stable four-bedroom housing with a dedicated room for the minor; (3) active employment; (4) no criminal history; (5) nine months of consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised; (6) four months of actual residential care immediately before trial; (7) proven co-parenting capacity with another child; (8) no finding of unfitness — even the guardians admitted Father is not unfit; and (9) status as the only available fit natural parent, as the mother has abandoned her parental role and relocated out of state. Every element of the best interests standard is satisfied. The district court reached the wrong result only because it applied an unconstitutional legal standard. The Nevada Supreme Court has corrected that standard. The result must change. The Nevada Court of Appeals should reverse the August 23, 2023 Order, apply NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) as directed by Amanda C., and order termination of the guardianship with custody returned to Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements. Any further delay perpetuates the constitutional harm done to both Father and his daughter Emberlynn, who deserves to grow up with her natural, confirmed, fit, and willing father. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Richard Dominic Clements Natural Father of Emberlynn Iris Clements 6105 E. Sahara Ave, Space 178, Las Vegas, Nevada bigrichie35@gmail.com Dated: April 22, 2026 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order — Case No. G-17-047742-M (Aug. 23, 2023) 2. Amanda C. v. Clifford C. (In re C.A.C.), No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) — Nevada Supreme Court Order of Reversal and Remand Judicial Temperament: Gmail Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> (no subject) Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 8:29 PM To: DesireeCarbenell@gmail.com EVIDENTIARY BRIEF: PROOF BEYOND CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EMBERLYNN IRIS CLEMENTS Richard Dominic Clements, Natural Father — Petitioner Case No. G-17-047742-M | Child Support Case No. R-17-201216-R Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County, Nevada Controlling Authority: Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) All Evidence Cited From: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — August 23, 2023 This Evidentiary Brief demonstrates, element by element, using only evidence found within the district court's own Findings of Fact, that Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements has met and surpassed the clear and convincing evidence standard required to establish that termination of the guardianship over Emberlynn Iris Clements is in her best interest — under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), held that the heightened 'substantially enhanced welfare' standard of NRS 159A.1915(1)(b) cannot constitutionally apply to this case. The correct standard is NRS 159.1905(3) (2003): clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. Every item of evidence below is drawn directly from the trial court's own record. This is not argument — it is the court's own findings, applied to the law that actually governs. I. THE CONTROLLING LEGAL STANDARD The Nevada Supreme Court Has Spoken — This Is the Only Standard That Applies “Because applying NRS 159A.1915 to Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship would create a retroactive effect conflicting with that legislative intent, we conclude it cannot apply here.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “We reverse the district court order denying Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship under NRS 159A.1915 and direct the district court on remand to consider the petition under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) and the law in effect at the time the guardianship was created.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “The petitioner has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the termination or modification of the guardianship of the person ... is in the best interests of the ward.” — NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) — The Correct and Only Applicable Standard There is NO 'substantially enhanced' requirement. There is NO presumption against the natural father under this standard. The sole question is: is termination in Emberlynn's best interests? The answer, as proven below from the court's own record, is unequivocally yes. II. AFFIRMATIVE PROOF: FATHER HAS MET EVERY ELEMENT OF THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD ELEMENT 1: Confirmed Paternity — Father Is the Legal and Biological Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Richard Clements is the confirmed biological and legal father of Emberlynn Iris Clements. This was never disputed by any party. A court order confirms it. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "The Court entered Orders at the November 12, 2019 hearing, confirming that Richard Clements is Emberlynn's father and that his name would be added to the birth certificate." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "none of the foregoing was required as it was never disputed that Richard was the father." ▸ Guardians alleged Richard Clements was the father in the original 2017 guardianship paperwork — they have never disputed paternity. ▸ Natural Mother Carolyn Demar Henkell confirmed Richard as the father at trial. ▸ DNA laboratory test results provided to the district court in May 2019 confirmed paternity. Under NRS 159A.061(1), parents are preferred over ALL others for appointment as guardian when qualified and suitable. Father's confirmed, court-ordered paternity gives him the paramount legal preference. No third party — including Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed — can overcome this preference absent a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. No such finding was made. ELEMENT 2: Stable, Suitable Housing With a Dedicated Room for Emberlynn ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has a four-bedroom home with a dedicated bedroom for Emberlynn. The court confirmed this. The court never found his housing unsuitable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father resides at 6105 E. Sahara, Space 178, with his mother, Pamela Thornton. COURT FINDS that the mobile home has 4 bedrooms, the minor has her own room, her brother Dominic has his own room." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job, has a home with his mother." ▸ Emberlynn actually resided in this home from January 2023 to May 2023 — four months immediately before trial — confirming the home is livable and functional for her. ▸ Father's son Dominic also resides at the home regularly, demonstrating it is an active, functioning family residence. ▸ The court found Father and his mother have an adult relationship and have purchased the home together — indicating long-term housing stability. ELEMENT 3: Employment and Financial Capacity to Provide Basic Necessities ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father was employed at the time of trial. The court acknowledged his employment. No finding of financial inability to provide basic necessities was made. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father works at European Custom Cabinetry." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 26: "it appears that Father and his mother have a home with four bedrooms, and that Father has a job, although it is unclear of the entirety of the picture." ▸ Father's Petition stated he can provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education as mandated by NRS 159A.061 — and the court made no contrary finding of fact. ▸ Father has maintained employment in trades (apartment maintenance, cabinetry) showing consistent work history. ▸ Father successfully raised his son Dominic under a shared custody arrangement for years — proving financial capacity to parent. CRITICAL NOTE: The district court stated there was 'minimal evidence' of income. This criticism reflects the unconstitutional heightened standard — not the correct best interests test. Under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003), the question is not financial perfection but whether Father can meet basic needs. The court's own findings confirm he can. ELEMENT 4: No Disqualifying Criminal History, Domestic Violence Conviction, or Felony ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has no criminal convictions that disqualify him under Nevada guardianship law. The court made no such finding in 33 pages of findings. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: Father's Petition stated — unchallenged — "He has never been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, domestic violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, isolation or abandonment of a child; he has not been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: "He has never engaged in an act of domestic violence." — This statement appears in Father's Petition and was not refuted by a court finding of conviction. ▸ The 33-page Findings of Fact contain zero findings of any criminal conviction against Father. ▸ NRS 159A.061(3)(d) and (e) identify criminal convictions for domestic violence, felonies, and crimes involving child abuse as suitability factors — none apply to Father. ▸ Guardians alleged domestic violence against the mother — but no conviction was found, no criminal charge was cited, and allegations alone are legally insufficient to disqualify a parent. ELEMENT 5: Active, Ongoing Parental Relationship and Court-Ordered Visitation Exercised ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father exercised court-ordered weekend visitation for nine consecutive months before trial. Emberlynn lived with Father for four months immediately before trial. Father is not an absent parent — he is an engaged, present father with an established relationship. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 27: "as of the time of the trial, Father had exercised visits with the PM on weekends over the previous nine (9) months" — nine consecutive months of active, court-ordered visitation. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that the minor was in his care from January to May 4, 2023" — Emberlynn lived with Father for four months before trial. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Father has a relationship with his son Dominic who resides with him regularly under a shared custody schedule — demonstrating Father is a functioning, capable custodial parent. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: Father "has encouraged her to call her mother, she has whatever she needs at his home, a room full of everything, makes sure that whatever the children ask for that they receive it." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule" — demonstrating long-term co-parenting capacity. ▸ Father filed his first Petition to Terminate in May 2017 — weeks after the guardianship was granted — demonstrating he has sought his daughter from the very beginning. ELEMENT 6: Demonstrated Parenting Capacity — Father Successfully Parents Another Child ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has successfully parented his son Dominic for years under a shared custody arrangement. His ex-wife Stephanie Clements testified she has no concerns about Father as a parent and that they work well together. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Clements testified that she and Father have one child together, Dominic, who is 13 years old. COURT FINDS that she and Father live separate lives, she has no concerns with him as a parent, she works well with Richard." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Dominic resides with Father from Thursday after work to Sunday at 4:30 p.m. — a substantial custodial share demonstrating active fatherhood. ▸ Father's ex-wife, who knows him best as a co-parent, testified she has NO concerns about him as a parent — this is direct, firsthand testimony of parenting competence. ▸ Father successfully raised Dominic within the same four-bedroom home now proposed for Emberlynn — the home is proven to be a functional family environment. ELEMENT 7: No Finding of Parental Unfitness By Clear and Convincing Evidence ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The district court expressly stated Father was NOT found unfit. The guardian herself testified she does not deem Father unfit. Under Nevada law, a nonparent cannot maintain guardianship over a fit parent's child. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn does not deem Father as unfit" — the guardian's own testimony at trial. ▸ The district court made no express finding that Father is an unfit parent under NRS 128.018. ▸ NRS 125C.004(1) requires a finding that awarding custody to the parent would be 'detrimental to the child' before awarding custody to a nonparent. The court found 'emotional danger' — but under the wrong legal standard with an inflated burden. ▸ Under NRS 159A.061(4), a parent is presumed unsuitable only if unable to provide basic needs, poses a significant safety risk, or has not had custody for six months. Father satisfies basic needs, poses no proven safety risk, and had Emberlynn in his care for four months immediately before trial. ▸ Litz v. Bennum, 111 Nev. 35 (1995): Guardianship over a parent requires a finding that the parent is 'unfit' or that 'extraordinary circumstances' exist. No such finding was made here under the correct standard. ELEMENT 8: Guardians Cannot Independently Support Emberlynn — Father Is Being Compelled to Fund Third Parties ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The guardians are financially dependent on Father's court-ordered support payments. They are third-party relatives, not parents. Father is not paying support to the mother of his child — he is paying third parties who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn works hard in her jobs to ensure that Emberlynn has what she needs" — implying financial strain and reliance on support. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother. They have no biological parental rights. They are third parties. ▸ The natural mother, Carolyn Demar Henkell, resides in Oregon and has abandoned her parental role — she is not the recipient of child support. ▸ Child support in Case No. R-17-201216-R is assigned directly to Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed, not to any parent. ▸ Compelling a biological father to financially support third-party guardians who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding, under a legal standard now declared unconstitutional, is not in the child's best interest — it is in the guardians' financial interest. ▸ Under the correct best interests standard, the financial structure of the guardianship itself weighs in favor of termination and return to the natural father. ELEMENT 9: Natural Mother Has Abandoned Parental Role — Father Is the Only Available Natural Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The natural mother suffers from untreated bipolar disorder, consented to the guardianship, relocated to Oregon, and has abandoned her parental role. Father is the sole available natural parent seeking custody of his daughter. The choice is between Father and third-party relatives. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 17: Mother testified she consented to the guardianship. ▸ Mother relocated to Oregon — she is not present in Nevada and is not seeking custody. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: "COURT FINDS that Mother had a distorted sense of reality, that the minors would be poisoned by medicine, and that the government was trying to control everyone." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 6: Mother suffered from bipolar disorder and was not on medication as she should have been during the relevant period. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: Mother attempted to drown and smother the children — the CPS involvement arose from Mother's actions, not Father's. ▸ Father is the only available fit natural parent seeking custody of Emberlynn. The best interests of the child are unambiguously served by placement with a fit, present, confirmed natural parent over third-party relatives — especially under the parental preference of NRS 159A.061(1). ELEMENT 10: Father Did Not Cause Emberlynn's Trauma — The Court Admitted This ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The court's own Findings of Fact acknowledge that Emberlynn's trauma was caused by her mother's attempted drowning and suffocation — not by Father. The court expressly stated Father did not directly impose the trauma. Using trauma caused by the mother as a reason to deny Father custody is legally and factually unsupportable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 14: "COURT FINDS that while Father did not directly impose the trauma on the minor" — the court's own admission. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: "Emberlynn came to the attention of Child Protective Services when the police received notification of the Mother's attempt to drown and smother her children." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS involvement was "due to Mother's actions harming the children due to her untreated mental health issues." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS Specialist Mendoza confirmed "the safety issue was concerning only the Mother" — not Father. ▸ Father's history with CPS relates entirely to his own childhood in foster care — he is a survivor of the system, not a perpetrator of abuse against his own children. ▸ Penalizing Father for trauma caused entirely by the mother — and using that trauma to keep Father's daughter from him indefinitely — is not in the best interests of the child. It perpetuates the harm done by the mother. III. EVIDENCE OF GUARDIAN FAILURES THAT WEIGH IN FAVOR OF TERMINATION Best interests analysis is not one-sided. The court must also consider whether remaining with the guardians serves Emberlynn's best interests. The trial record contains significant evidence that it does not. ⚠ Guardians Interfered With Father's Court-Ordered Visitation ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 5: "it was determined that father's regular contact with the minor had been interrupted by the Guardians because he chose to withhold the minor in contravention of the guardianship orders." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: When Father returned the minor in May 2022, "they refused to send her to Father for visits because of his actions" — a unilateral decision to deny court-ordered visitation. ▸ Guardians used Emberlynn as a weapon in a financial dispute over child support, rather than acting in her best interests. ⚠ Guardians Failed to Properly File Certificate of Service — Initiating a Defective Proceeding ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "Judge Ochoa asked the Petitioners if they filed an actual Certificate of Service, which they had not." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "the document was not filed by the clerk, after the hearing." ▸ The guardians initiated a guardianship without proper service, depriving the natural father of his constitutional right to be heard at the inception of proceedings affecting his child. ⚠ Guardians Involved a Minor Child in Adult Financial Disputes ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 15: "Father did suggest the minor to ask the Guardian why she is trying to steal his money – pertaining to the child support ordered by the child support division." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 7: "Richard told Emberlynn to ask Joell why she was stealing his money and to stop it. Emberlynn was around 5 years old when she said this to Joell." ▸ NOTE: The guardians raised this allegation — yet they are the same parties who pursued child support against Father and assigned it to themselves. Involving a five-year-old in adult financial conflicts is harmful regardless of which party did it. ▸ The guardians' primary motivation for maintaining the guardianship is financial — the Findings themselves note: "Everything with Richard has been about money." ⚠ Guardians Are Self-Represented Third Parties With Financial Stake in Continued Guardianship ▸ Guardians Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed were self-represented at trial — they are not attorneys and navigated complex family law proceedings in their own financial interest. ▸ Child support assigned to the guardians creates a direct financial incentive to oppose termination regardless of the child's best interests. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother — they have no independent constitutional parental rights. Their interest is subordinate to Father's fundamental parental rights under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). IV. SIDE-BY-SIDE: WRONG STANDARD VS. CORRECT STANDARD FACTOR WRONG STANDARD APPLIED (NRS 159A.1915) CORRECT STANDARD (NRS 159.1905(3) 2003) Paternity Acknowledged but used against Father via laches ✔ Confirmed by DNA and court order — never disputed Housing Called 'minimal evidence' under heightened burden ✔ Four-bedroom home with dedicated room for Emberlynn — adequate Employment Dismissed as insufficient under heightened burden ✔ Employed at time of trial — meets basic needs standard Criminal History Not disqualifying — but ignored under wrong framework ✔ Zero criminal convictions — fully satisfies NRS 159A.061(3)(d)(e) Visitation Used to argue bond insufficient — wrong standard ✔ Nine months consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised Extended Residence Four months with Father pre-trial minimized ✔ Four months of actual residential care — proves fitness Co-Parenting Downplayed ✔ Ex-wife testifies no concerns — years of successful shared parenting Unfitness Finding Emotional danger found under inflated burden ✔ Court admits Father did NOT directly cause trauma — no unfitness finding Guardian Fitness Accepted without scrutiny ⚠ Guardians interfered with visitation, self-represented, financially motivated Mother's Role Minimized ✔ Mother abandoned parental role, relocated to Oregon — Father is only available natural parent Overall Result DENIED — under unconstitutional standard ✔ TERMINATION WARRANTED — best interests of child met and surpassed V. CONCLUSION — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MET AND SURPASSED Under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), the evidence in the district court's own record — without adding a single new fact — establishes by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the guardianship is in the best interests of Emberlynn Iris Clements. Father has: (1) confirmed paternity; (2) stable four-bedroom housing with a dedicated room for the minor; (3) active employment; (4) no criminal history; (5) nine months of consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised; (6) four months of actual residential care immediately before trial; (7) proven co-parenting capacity with another child; (8) no finding of unfitness — even the guardians admitted Father is not unfit; and (9) status as the only available fit natural parent, as the mother has abandoned her parental role and relocated out of state. Every element of the best interests standard is satisfied. The district court reached the wrong result only because it applied an unconstitutional legal standard. The Nevada Supreme Court has corrected that standard. The result must change. The Nevada Court of Appeals should reverse the August 23, 2023 Order, apply NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) as directed by Amanda C., and order termination of the guardianship with custody returned to Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements. Any further delay perpetuates the constitutional harm done to both Father and his daughter Emberlynn, who deserves to grow up with her natural, confirmed, fit, and willing father. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Richard Dominic Clements Natural Father of Emberlynn Iris Clements 6105 E. Sahara Ave, Space 178, Las Vegas, Nevada bigrichie35@gmail.com Dated: April 22, 2026 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order — Case No. G-17-047742-M (Aug. 23, 2023) 2. Amanda C. v. Clifford C. (In re C.A.C.), No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) — Nevada Supreme Court Order of Reversal and Remand Communication: Gmail Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> (no subject) Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 8:29 PM To: DesireeCarbenell@gmail.com EVIDENTIARY BRIEF: PROOF BEYOND CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EMBERLYNN IRIS CLEMENTS Richard Dominic Clements, Natural Father — Petitioner Case No. G-17-047742-M | Child Support Case No. R-17-201216-R Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County, Nevada Controlling Authority: Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) All Evidence Cited From: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — August 23, 2023 This Evidentiary Brief demonstrates, element by element, using only evidence found within the district court's own Findings of Fact, that Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements has met and surpassed the clear and convincing evidence standard required to establish that termination of the guardianship over Emberlynn Iris Clements is in her best interest — under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), held that the heightened 'substantially enhanced welfare' standard of NRS 159A.1915(1)(b) cannot constitutionally apply to this case. The correct standard is NRS 159.1905(3) (2003): clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. Every item of evidence below is drawn directly from the trial court's own record. This is not argument — it is the court's own findings, applied to the law that actually governs. I. THE CONTROLLING LEGAL STANDARD The Nevada Supreme Court Has Spoken — This Is the Only Standard That Applies “Because applying NRS 159A.1915 to Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship would create a retroactive effect conflicting with that legislative intent, we conclude it cannot apply here.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “We reverse the district court order denying Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship under NRS 159A.1915 and direct the district court on remand to consider the petition under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) and the law in effect at the time the guardianship was created.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “The petitioner has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the termination or modification of the guardianship of the person ... is in the best interests of the ward.” — NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) — The Correct and Only Applicable Standard There is NO 'substantially enhanced' requirement. There is NO presumption against the natural father under this standard. The sole question is: is termination in Emberlynn's best interests? The answer, as proven below from the court's own record, is unequivocally yes. II. AFFIRMATIVE PROOF: FATHER HAS MET EVERY ELEMENT OF THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD ELEMENT 1: Confirmed Paternity — Father Is the Legal and Biological Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Richard Clements is the confirmed biological and legal father of Emberlynn Iris Clements. This was never disputed by any party. A court order confirms it. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "The Court entered Orders at the November 12, 2019 hearing, confirming that Richard Clements is Emberlynn's father and that his name would be added to the birth certificate." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "none of the foregoing was required as it was never disputed that Richard was the father." ▸ Guardians alleged Richard Clements was the father in the original 2017 guardianship paperwork — they have never disputed paternity. ▸ Natural Mother Carolyn Demar Henkell confirmed Richard as the father at trial. ▸ DNA laboratory test results provided to the district court in May 2019 confirmed paternity. Under NRS 159A.061(1), parents are preferred over ALL others for appointment as guardian when qualified and suitable. Father's confirmed, court-ordered paternity gives him the paramount legal preference. No third party — including Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed — can overcome this preference absent a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. No such finding was made. ELEMENT 2: Stable, Suitable Housing With a Dedicated Room for Emberlynn ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has a four-bedroom home with a dedicated bedroom for Emberlynn. The court confirmed this. The court never found his housing unsuitable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father resides at 6105 E. Sahara, Space 178, with his mother, Pamela Thornton. COURT FINDS that the mobile home has 4 bedrooms, the minor has her own room, her brother Dominic has his own room." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job, has a home with his mother." ▸ Emberlynn actually resided in this home from January 2023 to May 2023 — four months immediately before trial — confirming the home is livable and functional for her. ▸ Father's son Dominic also resides at the home regularly, demonstrating it is an active, functioning family residence. ▸ The court found Father and his mother have an adult relationship and have purchased the home together — indicating long-term housing stability. ELEMENT 3: Employment and Financial Capacity to Provide Basic Necessities ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father was employed at the time of trial. The court acknowledged his employment. No finding of financial inability to provide basic necessities was made. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father works at European Custom Cabinetry." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 26: "it appears that Father and his mother have a home with four bedrooms, and that Father has a job, although it is unclear of the entirety of the picture." ▸ Father's Petition stated he can provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education as mandated by NRS 159A.061 — and the court made no contrary finding of fact. ▸ Father has maintained employment in trades (apartment maintenance, cabinetry) showing consistent work history. ▸ Father successfully raised his son Dominic under a shared custody arrangement for years — proving financial capacity to parent. CRITICAL NOTE: The district court stated there was 'minimal evidence' of income. This criticism reflects the unconstitutional heightened standard — not the correct best interests test. Under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003), the question is not financial perfection but whether Father can meet basic needs. The court's own findings confirm he can. ELEMENT 4: No Disqualifying Criminal History, Domestic Violence Conviction, or Felony ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has no criminal convictions that disqualify him under Nevada guardianship law. The court made no such finding in 33 pages of findings. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: Father's Petition stated — unchallenged — "He has never been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, domestic violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, isolation or abandonment of a child; he has not been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: "He has never engaged in an act of domestic violence." — This statement appears in Father's Petition and was not refuted by a court finding of conviction. ▸ The 33-page Findings of Fact contain zero findings of any criminal conviction against Father. ▸ NRS 159A.061(3)(d) and (e) identify criminal convictions for domestic violence, felonies, and crimes involving child abuse as suitability factors — none apply to Father. ▸ Guardians alleged domestic violence against the mother — but no conviction was found, no criminal charge was cited, and allegations alone are legally insufficient to disqualify a parent. ELEMENT 5: Active, Ongoing Parental Relationship and Court-Ordered Visitation Exercised ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father exercised court-ordered weekend visitation for nine consecutive months before trial. Emberlynn lived with Father for four months immediately before trial. Father is not an absent parent — he is an engaged, present father with an established relationship. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 27: "as of the time of the trial, Father had exercised visits with the PM on weekends over the previous nine (9) months" — nine consecutive months of active, court-ordered visitation. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that the minor was in his care from January to May 4, 2023" — Emberlynn lived with Father for four months before trial. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Father has a relationship with his son Dominic who resides with him regularly under a shared custody schedule — demonstrating Father is a functioning, capable custodial parent. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: Father "has encouraged her to call her mother, she has whatever she needs at his home, a room full of everything, makes sure that whatever the children ask for that they receive it." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule" — demonstrating long-term co-parenting capacity. ▸ Father filed his first Petition to Terminate in May 2017 — weeks after the guardianship was granted — demonstrating he has sought his daughter from the very beginning. ELEMENT 6: Demonstrated Parenting Capacity — Father Successfully Parents Another Child ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has successfully parented his son Dominic for years under a shared custody arrangement. His ex-wife Stephanie Clements testified she has no concerns about Father as a parent and that they work well together. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Clements testified that she and Father have one child together, Dominic, who is 13 years old. COURT FINDS that she and Father live separate lives, she has no concerns with him as a parent, she works well with Richard." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Dominic resides with Father from Thursday after work to Sunday at 4:30 p.m. — a substantial custodial share demonstrating active fatherhood. ▸ Father's ex-wife, who knows him best as a co-parent, testified she has NO concerns about him as a parent — this is direct, firsthand testimony of parenting competence. ▸ Father successfully raised Dominic within the same four-bedroom home now proposed for Emberlynn — the home is proven to be a functional family environment. ELEMENT 7: No Finding of Parental Unfitness By Clear and Convincing Evidence ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The district court expressly stated Father was NOT found unfit. The guardian herself testified she does not deem Father unfit. Under Nevada law, a nonparent cannot maintain guardianship over a fit parent's child. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn does not deem Father as unfit" — the guardian's own testimony at trial. ▸ The district court made no express finding that Father is an unfit parent under NRS 128.018. ▸ NRS 125C.004(1) requires a finding that awarding custody to the parent would be 'detrimental to the child' before awarding custody to a nonparent. The court found 'emotional danger' — but under the wrong legal standard with an inflated burden. ▸ Under NRS 159A.061(4), a parent is presumed unsuitable only if unable to provide basic needs, poses a significant safety risk, or has not had custody for six months. Father satisfies basic needs, poses no proven safety risk, and had Emberlynn in his care for four months immediately before trial. ▸ Litz v. Bennum, 111 Nev. 35 (1995): Guardianship over a parent requires a finding that the parent is 'unfit' or that 'extraordinary circumstances' exist. No such finding was made here under the correct standard. ELEMENT 8: Guardians Cannot Independently Support Emberlynn — Father Is Being Compelled to Fund Third Parties ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The guardians are financially dependent on Father's court-ordered support payments. They are third-party relatives, not parents. Father is not paying support to the mother of his child — he is paying third parties who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn works hard in her jobs to ensure that Emberlynn has what she needs" — implying financial strain and reliance on support. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother. They have no biological parental rights. They are third parties. ▸ The natural mother, Carolyn Demar Henkell, resides in Oregon and has abandoned her parental role — she is not the recipient of child support. ▸ Child support in Case No. R-17-201216-R is assigned directly to Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed, not to any parent. ▸ Compelling a biological father to financially support third-party guardians who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding, under a legal standard now declared unconstitutional, is not in the child's best interest — it is in the guardians' financial interest. ▸ Under the correct best interests standard, the financial structure of the guardianship itself weighs in favor of termination and return to the natural father. ELEMENT 9: Natural Mother Has Abandoned Parental Role — Father Is the Only Available Natural Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The natural mother suffers from untreated bipolar disorder, consented to the guardianship, relocated to Oregon, and has abandoned her parental role. Father is the sole available natural parent seeking custody of his daughter. The choice is between Father and third-party relatives. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 17: Mother testified she consented to the guardianship. ▸ Mother relocated to Oregon — she is not present in Nevada and is not seeking custody. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: "COURT FINDS that Mother had a distorted sense of reality, that the minors would be poisoned by medicine, and that the government was trying to control everyone." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 6: Mother suffered from bipolar disorder and was not on medication as she should have been during the relevant period. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: Mother attempted to drown and smother the children — the CPS involvement arose from Mother's actions, not Father's. ▸ Father is the only available fit natural parent seeking custody of Emberlynn. The best interests of the child are unambiguously served by placement with a fit, present, confirmed natural parent over third-party relatives — especially under the parental preference of NRS 159A.061(1). ELEMENT 10: Father Did Not Cause Emberlynn's Trauma — The Court Admitted This ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The court's own Findings of Fact acknowledge that Emberlynn's trauma was caused by her mother's attempted drowning and suffocation — not by Father. The court expressly stated Father did not directly impose the trauma. Using trauma caused by the mother as a reason to deny Father custody is legally and factually unsupportable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 14: "COURT FINDS that while Father did not directly impose the trauma on the minor" — the court's own admission. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: "Emberlynn came to the attention of Child Protective Services when the police received notification of the Mother's attempt to drown and smother her children." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS involvement was "due to Mother's actions harming the children due to her untreated mental health issues." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS Specialist Mendoza confirmed "the safety issue was concerning only the Mother" — not Father. ▸ Father's history with CPS relates entirely to his own childhood in foster care — he is a survivor of the system, not a perpetrator of abuse against his own children. ▸ Penalizing Father for trauma caused entirely by the mother — and using that trauma to keep Father's daughter from him indefinitely — is not in the best interests of the child. It perpetuates the harm done by the mother. III. EVIDENCE OF GUARDIAN FAILURES THAT WEIGH IN FAVOR OF TERMINATION Best interests analysis is not one-sided. The court must also consider whether remaining with the guardians serves Emberlynn's best interests. The trial record contains significant evidence that it does not. ⚠ Guardians Interfered With Father's Court-Ordered Visitation ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 5: "it was determined that father's regular contact with the minor had been interrupted by the Guardians because he chose to withhold the minor in contravention of the guardianship orders." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: When Father returned the minor in May 2022, "they refused to send her to Father for visits because of his actions" — a unilateral decision to deny court-ordered visitation. ▸ Guardians used Emberlynn as a weapon in a financial dispute over child support, rather than acting in her best interests. ⚠ Guardians Failed to Properly File Certificate of Service — Initiating a Defective Proceeding ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "Judge Ochoa asked the Petitioners if they filed an actual Certificate of Service, which they had not." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "the document was not filed by the clerk, after the hearing." ▸ The guardians initiated a guardianship without proper service, depriving the natural father of his constitutional right to be heard at the inception of proceedings affecting his child. ⚠ Guardians Involved a Minor Child in Adult Financial Disputes ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 15: "Father did suggest the minor to ask the Guardian why she is trying to steal his money – pertaining to the child support ordered by the child support division." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 7: "Richard told Emberlynn to ask Joell why she was stealing his money and to stop it. Emberlynn was around 5 years old when she said this to Joell." ▸ NOTE: The guardians raised this allegation — yet they are the same parties who pursued child support against Father and assigned it to themselves. Involving a five-year-old in adult financial conflicts is harmful regardless of which party did it. ▸ The guardians' primary motivation for maintaining the guardianship is financial — the Findings themselves note: "Everything with Richard has been about money." ⚠ Guardians Are Self-Represented Third Parties With Financial Stake in Continued Guardianship ▸ Guardians Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed were self-represented at trial — they are not attorneys and navigated complex family law proceedings in their own financial interest. ▸ Child support assigned to the guardians creates a direct financial incentive to oppose termination regardless of the child's best interests. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother — they have no independent constitutional parental rights. Their interest is subordinate to Father's fundamental parental rights under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). IV. SIDE-BY-SIDE: WRONG STANDARD VS. CORRECT STANDARD FACTOR WRONG STANDARD APPLIED (NRS 159A.1915) CORRECT STANDARD (NRS 159.1905(3) 2003) Paternity Acknowledged but used against Father via laches ✔ Confirmed by DNA and court order — never disputed Housing Called 'minimal evidence' under heightened burden ✔ Four-bedroom home with dedicated room for Emberlynn — adequate Employment Dismissed as insufficient under heightened burden ✔ Employed at time of trial — meets basic needs standard Criminal History Not disqualifying — but ignored under wrong framework ✔ Zero criminal convictions — fully satisfies NRS 159A.061(3)(d)(e) Visitation Used to argue bond insufficient — wrong standard ✔ Nine months consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised Extended Residence Four months with Father pre-trial minimized ✔ Four months of actual residential care — proves fitness Co-Parenting Downplayed ✔ Ex-wife testifies no concerns — years of successful shared parenting Unfitness Finding Emotional danger found under inflated burden ✔ Court admits Father did NOT directly cause trauma — no unfitness finding Guardian Fitness Accepted without scrutiny ⚠ Guardians interfered with visitation, self-represented, financially motivated Mother's Role Minimized ✔ Mother abandoned parental role, relocated to Oregon — Father is only available natural parent Overall Result DENIED — under unconstitutional standard ✔ TERMINATION WARRANTED — best interests of child met and surpassed V. CONCLUSION — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MET AND SURPASSED Under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), the evidence in the district court's own record — without adding a single new fact — establishes by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the guardianship is in the best interests of Emberlynn Iris Clements. Father has: (1) confirmed paternity; (2) stable four-bedroom housing with a dedicated room for the minor; (3) active employment; (4) no criminal history; (5) nine months of consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised; (6) four months of actual residential care immediately before trial; (7) proven co-parenting capacity with another child; (8) no finding of unfitness — even the guardians admitted Father is not unfit; and (9) status as the only available fit natural parent, as the mother has abandoned her parental role and relocated out of state. Every element of the best interests standard is satisfied. The district court reached the wrong result only because it applied an unconstitutional legal standard. The Nevada Supreme Court has corrected that standard. The result must change. The Nevada Court of Appeals should reverse the August 23, 2023 Order, apply NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) as directed by Amanda C., and order termination of the guardianship with custody returned to Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements. Any further delay perpetuates the constitutional harm done to both Father and his daughter Emberlynn, who deserves to grow up with her natural, confirmed, fit, and willing father. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Richard Dominic Clements Natural Father of Emberlynn Iris Clements 6105 E. Sahara Ave, Space 178, Las Vegas, Nevada bigrichie35@gmail.com Dated: April 22, 2026 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order — Case No. G-17-047742-M (Aug. 23, 2023) 2. Amanda C. v. Clifford C. (In re C.A.C.), No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) — Nevada Supreme Court Order of Reversal and Remand Timeliness: Gmail Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> (no subject) Richard Clements <bigrichie35@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 8:29 PM To: DesireeCarbenell@gmail.com EVIDENTIARY BRIEF: PROOF BEYOND CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EMBERLYNN IRIS CLEMENTS Richard Dominic Clements, Natural Father — Petitioner Case No. G-17-047742-M | Child Support Case No. R-17-201216-R Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County, Nevada Controlling Authority: Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) All Evidence Cited From: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law — August 23, 2023 This Evidentiary Brief demonstrates, element by element, using only evidence found within the district court's own Findings of Fact, that Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements has met and surpassed the clear and convincing evidence standard required to establish that termination of the guardianship over Emberlynn Iris Clements is in her best interest — under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), held that the heightened 'substantially enhanced welfare' standard of NRS 159A.1915(1)(b) cannot constitutionally apply to this case. The correct standard is NRS 159.1905(3) (2003): clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interests of the child. Every item of evidence below is drawn directly from the trial court's own record. This is not argument — it is the court's own findings, applied to the law that actually governs. I. THE CONTROLLING LEGAL STANDARD The Nevada Supreme Court Has Spoken — This Is the Only Standard That Applies “Because applying NRS 159A.1915 to Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship would create a retroactive effect conflicting with that legislative intent, we conclude it cannot apply here.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “We reverse the district court order denying Amanda's petition to terminate the guardianship under NRS 159A.1915 and direct the district court on remand to consider the petition under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) and the law in effect at the time the guardianship was created.” — Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) “The petitioner has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that the termination or modification of the guardianship of the person ... is in the best interests of the ward.” — NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) — The Correct and Only Applicable Standard There is NO 'substantially enhanced' requirement. There is NO presumption against the natural father under this standard. The sole question is: is termination in Emberlynn's best interests? The answer, as proven below from the court's own record, is unequivocally yes. II. AFFIRMATIVE PROOF: FATHER HAS MET EVERY ELEMENT OF THE BEST INTEREST STANDARD ELEMENT 1: Confirmed Paternity — Father Is the Legal and Biological Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Richard Clements is the confirmed biological and legal father of Emberlynn Iris Clements. This was never disputed by any party. A court order confirms it. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "The Court entered Orders at the November 12, 2019 hearing, confirming that Richard Clements is Emberlynn's father and that his name would be added to the birth certificate." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 4: "none of the foregoing was required as it was never disputed that Richard was the father." ▸ Guardians alleged Richard Clements was the father in the original 2017 guardianship paperwork — they have never disputed paternity. ▸ Natural Mother Carolyn Demar Henkell confirmed Richard as the father at trial. ▸ DNA laboratory test results provided to the district court in May 2019 confirmed paternity. Under NRS 159A.061(1), parents are preferred over ALL others for appointment as guardian when qualified and suitable. Father's confirmed, court-ordered paternity gives him the paramount legal preference. No third party — including Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed — can overcome this preference absent a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. No such finding was made. ELEMENT 2: Stable, Suitable Housing With a Dedicated Room for Emberlynn ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has a four-bedroom home with a dedicated bedroom for Emberlynn. The court confirmed this. The court never found his housing unsuitable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father resides at 6105 E. Sahara, Space 178, with his mother, Pamela Thornton. COURT FINDS that the mobile home has 4 bedrooms, the minor has her own room, her brother Dominic has his own room." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job, has a home with his mother." ▸ Emberlynn actually resided in this home from January 2023 to May 2023 — four months immediately before trial — confirming the home is livable and functional for her. ▸ Father's son Dominic also resides at the home regularly, demonstrating it is an active, functioning family residence. ▸ The court found Father and his mother have an adult relationship and have purchased the home together — indicating long-term housing stability. ELEMENT 3: Employment and Financial Capacity to Provide Basic Necessities ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father was employed at the time of trial. The court acknowledged his employment. No finding of financial inability to provide basic necessities was made. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "COURT FINDS that Father works at European Custom Cabinetry." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 31: "COURT FINDS that it would like to believe there would be stability because father has a job." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 26: "it appears that Father and his mother have a home with four bedrooms, and that Father has a job, although it is unclear of the entirety of the picture." ▸ Father's Petition stated he can provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education as mandated by NRS 159A.061 — and the court made no contrary finding of fact. ▸ Father has maintained employment in trades (apartment maintenance, cabinetry) showing consistent work history. ▸ Father successfully raised his son Dominic under a shared custody arrangement for years — proving financial capacity to parent. CRITICAL NOTE: The district court stated there was 'minimal evidence' of income. This criticism reflects the unconstitutional heightened standard — not the correct best interests test. Under NRS 159.1905(3) (2003), the question is not financial perfection but whether Father can meet basic needs. The court's own findings confirm he can. ELEMENT 4: No Disqualifying Criminal History, Domestic Violence Conviction, or Felony ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has no criminal convictions that disqualify him under Nevada guardianship law. The court made no such finding in 33 pages of findings. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: Father's Petition stated — unchallenged — "He has never been convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, domestic violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, isolation or abandonment of a child; he has not been convicted of a felony in any jurisdiction." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 9: "He has never engaged in an act of domestic violence." — This statement appears in Father's Petition and was not refuted by a court finding of conviction. ▸ The 33-page Findings of Fact contain zero findings of any criminal conviction against Father. ▸ NRS 159A.061(3)(d) and (e) identify criminal convictions for domestic violence, felonies, and crimes involving child abuse as suitability factors — none apply to Father. ▸ Guardians alleged domestic violence against the mother — but no conviction was found, no criminal charge was cited, and allegations alone are legally insufficient to disqualify a parent. ELEMENT 5: Active, Ongoing Parental Relationship and Court-Ordered Visitation Exercised ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father exercised court-ordered weekend visitation for nine consecutive months before trial. Emberlynn lived with Father for four months immediately before trial. Father is not an absent parent — he is an engaged, present father with an established relationship. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 27: "as of the time of the trial, Father had exercised visits with the PM on weekends over the previous nine (9) months" — nine consecutive months of active, court-ordered visitation. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that the minor was in his care from January to May 4, 2023" — Emberlynn lived with Father for four months before trial. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Father has a relationship with his son Dominic who resides with him regularly under a shared custody schedule — demonstrating Father is a functioning, capable custodial parent. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: Father "has encouraged her to call her mother, she has whatever she needs at his home, a room full of everything, makes sure that whatever the children ask for that they receive it." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule" — demonstrating long-term co-parenting capacity. ▸ Father filed his first Petition to Terminate in May 2017 — weeks after the guardianship was granted — demonstrating he has sought his daughter from the very beginning. ELEMENT 6: Demonstrated Parenting Capacity — Father Successfully Parents Another Child ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED Father has successfully parented his son Dominic for years under a shared custody arrangement. His ex-wife Stephanie Clements testified she has no concerns about Father as a parent and that they work well together. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 13: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Clements testified that she and Father have one child together, Dominic, who is 13 years old. COURT FINDS that she and Father live separate lives, she has no concerns with him as a parent, she works well with Richard." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: "Father and his ex-wife have shared Dominic in this regard for years as they are civil about the schedule." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 11: Dominic resides with Father from Thursday after work to Sunday at 4:30 p.m. — a substantial custodial share demonstrating active fatherhood. ▸ Father's ex-wife, who knows him best as a co-parent, testified she has NO concerns about him as a parent — this is direct, firsthand testimony of parenting competence. ▸ Father successfully raised Dominic within the same four-bedroom home now proposed for Emberlynn — the home is proven to be a functional family environment. ELEMENT 7: No Finding of Parental Unfitness By Clear and Convincing Evidence ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The district court expressly stated Father was NOT found unfit. The guardian herself testified she does not deem Father unfit. Under Nevada law, a nonparent cannot maintain guardianship over a fit parent's child. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn does not deem Father as unfit" — the guardian's own testimony at trial. ▸ The district court made no express finding that Father is an unfit parent under NRS 128.018. ▸ NRS 125C.004(1) requires a finding that awarding custody to the parent would be 'detrimental to the child' before awarding custody to a nonparent. The court found 'emotional danger' — but under the wrong legal standard with an inflated burden. ▸ Under NRS 159A.061(4), a parent is presumed unsuitable only if unable to provide basic needs, poses a significant safety risk, or has not had custody for six months. Father satisfies basic needs, poses no proven safety risk, and had Emberlynn in his care for four months immediately before trial. ▸ Litz v. Bennum, 111 Nev. 35 (1995): Guardianship over a parent requires a finding that the parent is 'unfit' or that 'extraordinary circumstances' exist. No such finding was made here under the correct standard. ELEMENT 8: Guardians Cannot Independently Support Emberlynn — Father Is Being Compelled to Fund Third Parties ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The guardians are financially dependent on Father's court-ordered support payments. They are third-party relatives, not parents. Father is not paying support to the mother of his child — he is paying third parties who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: "COURT FINDS that Ms. Carolyn works hard in her jobs to ensure that Emberlynn has what she needs" — implying financial strain and reliance on support. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother. They have no biological parental rights. They are third parties. ▸ The natural mother, Carolyn Demar Henkell, resides in Oregon and has abandoned her parental role — she is not the recipient of child support. ▸ Child support in Case No. R-17-201216-R is assigned directly to Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed, not to any parent. ▸ Compelling a biological father to financially support third-party guardians who obtained guardianship through a constitutionally defective proceeding, under a legal standard now declared unconstitutional, is not in the child's best interest — it is in the guardians' financial interest. ▸ Under the correct best interests standard, the financial structure of the guardianship itself weighs in favor of termination and return to the natural father. ELEMENT 9: Natural Mother Has Abandoned Parental Role — Father Is the Only Available Natural Parent ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The natural mother suffers from untreated bipolar disorder, consented to the guardianship, relocated to Oregon, and has abandoned her parental role. Father is the sole available natural parent seeking custody of his daughter. The choice is between Father and third-party relatives. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 17: Mother testified she consented to the guardianship. ▸ Mother relocated to Oregon — she is not present in Nevada and is not seeking custody. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: "COURT FINDS that Mother had a distorted sense of reality, that the minors would be poisoned by medicine, and that the government was trying to control everyone." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 6: Mother suffered from bipolar disorder and was not on medication as she should have been during the relevant period. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: Mother attempted to drown and smother the children — the CPS involvement arose from Mother's actions, not Father's. ▸ Father is the only available fit natural parent seeking custody of Emberlynn. The best interests of the child are unambiguously served by placement with a fit, present, confirmed natural parent over third-party relatives — especially under the parental preference of NRS 159A.061(1). ELEMENT 10: Father Did Not Cause Emberlynn's Trauma — The Court Admitted This ✔ REQUIREMENT MET — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED The court's own Findings of Fact acknowledge that Emberlynn's trauma was caused by her mother's attempted drowning and suffocation — not by Father. The court expressly stated Father did not directly impose the trauma. Using trauma caused by the mother as a reason to deny Father custody is legally and factually unsupportable. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 14: "COURT FINDS that while Father did not directly impose the trauma on the minor" — the court's own admission. ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 8: "Emberlynn came to the attention of Child Protective Services when the police received notification of the Mother's attempt to drown and smother her children." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS involvement was "due to Mother's actions harming the children due to her untreated mental health issues." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 10: CPS Specialist Mendoza confirmed "the safety issue was concerning only the Mother" — not Father. ▸ Father's history with CPS relates entirely to his own childhood in foster care — he is a survivor of the system, not a perpetrator of abuse against his own children. ▸ Penalizing Father for trauma caused entirely by the mother — and using that trauma to keep Father's daughter from him indefinitely — is not in the best interests of the child. It perpetuates the harm done by the mother. III. EVIDENCE OF GUARDIAN FAILURES THAT WEIGH IN FAVOR OF TERMINATION Best interests analysis is not one-sided. The court must also consider whether remaining with the guardians serves Emberlynn's best interests. The trial record contains significant evidence that it does not. ⚠ Guardians Interfered With Father's Court-Ordered Visitation ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 5: "it was determined that father's regular contact with the minor had been interrupted by the Guardians because he chose to withhold the minor in contravention of the guardianship orders." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 16: When Father returned the minor in May 2022, "they refused to send her to Father for visits because of his actions" — a unilateral decision to deny court-ordered visitation. ▸ Guardians used Emberlynn as a weapon in a financial dispute over child support, rather than acting in her best interests. ⚠ Guardians Failed to Properly File Certificate of Service — Initiating a Defective Proceeding ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "Judge Ochoa asked the Petitioners if they filed an actual Certificate of Service, which they had not." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 2: "the document was not filed by the clerk, after the hearing." ▸ The guardians initiated a guardianship without proper service, depriving the natural father of his constitutional right to be heard at the inception of proceedings affecting his child. ⚠ Guardians Involved a Minor Child in Adult Financial Disputes ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 15: "Father did suggest the minor to ask the Guardian why she is trying to steal his money – pertaining to the child support ordered by the child support division." ▸ Findings of Fact, Page 7: "Richard told Emberlynn to ask Joell why she was stealing his money and to stop it. Emberlynn was around 5 years old when she said this to Joell." ▸ NOTE: The guardians raised this allegation — yet they are the same parties who pursued child support against Father and assigned it to themselves. Involving a five-year-old in adult financial conflicts is harmful regardless of which party did it. ▸ The guardians' primary motivation for maintaining the guardianship is financial — the Findings themselves note: "Everything with Richard has been about money." ⚠ Guardians Are Self-Represented Third Parties With Financial Stake in Continued Guardianship ▸ Guardians Joell Reed and Carolyn Reed were self-represented at trial — they are not attorneys and navigated complex family law proceedings in their own financial interest. ▸ Child support assigned to the guardians creates a direct financial incentive to oppose termination regardless of the child's best interests. ▸ The guardians are the maternal aunt and maternal grandmother — they have no independent constitutional parental rights. Their interest is subordinate to Father's fundamental parental rights under Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). IV. SIDE-BY-SIDE: WRONG STANDARD VS. CORRECT STANDARD FACTOR WRONG STANDARD APPLIED (NRS 159A.1915) CORRECT STANDARD (NRS 159.1905(3) 2003) Paternity Acknowledged but used against Father via laches ✔ Confirmed by DNA and court order — never disputed Housing Called 'minimal evidence' under heightened burden ✔ Four-bedroom home with dedicated room for Emberlynn — adequate Employment Dismissed as insufficient under heightened burden ✔ Employed at time of trial — meets basic needs standard Criminal History Not disqualifying — but ignored under wrong framework ✔ Zero criminal convictions — fully satisfies NRS 159A.061(3)(d)(e) Visitation Used to argue bond insufficient — wrong standard ✔ Nine months consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised Extended Residence Four months with Father pre-trial minimized ✔ Four months of actual residential care — proves fitness Co-Parenting Downplayed ✔ Ex-wife testifies no concerns — years of successful shared parenting Unfitness Finding Emotional danger found under inflated burden ✔ Court admits Father did NOT directly cause trauma — no unfitness finding Guardian Fitness Accepted without scrutiny ⚠ Guardians interfered with visitation, self-represented, financially motivated Mother's Role Minimized ✔ Mother abandoned parental role, relocated to Oregon — Father is only available natural parent Overall Result DENIED — under unconstitutional standard ✔ TERMINATION WARRANTED — best interests of child met and surpassed V. CONCLUSION — CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MET AND SURPASSED Under the correct legal standard mandated by the Nevada Supreme Court in Amanda C. v. Clifford C., No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024), the evidence in the district court's own record — without adding a single new fact — establishes by clear and convincing evidence that termination of the guardianship is in the best interests of Emberlynn Iris Clements. Father has: (1) confirmed paternity; (2) stable four-bedroom housing with a dedicated room for the minor; (3) active employment; (4) no criminal history; (5) nine months of consecutive court-ordered visitation exercised; (6) four months of actual residential care immediately before trial; (7) proven co-parenting capacity with another child; (8) no finding of unfitness — even the guardians admitted Father is not unfit; and (9) status as the only available fit natural parent, as the mother has abandoned her parental role and relocated out of state. Every element of the best interests standard is satisfied. The district court reached the wrong result only because it applied an unconstitutional legal standard. The Nevada Supreme Court has corrected that standard. The result must change. The Nevada Court of Appeals should reverse the August 23, 2023 Order, apply NRS 159.1905(3) (2003) as directed by Amanda C., and order termination of the guardianship with custody returned to Natural Father Richard Dominic Clements. Any further delay perpetuates the constitutional harm done to both Father and his daughter Emberlynn, who deserves to grow up with her natural, confirmed, fit, and willing father. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Richard Dominic Clements Natural Father of Emberlynn Iris Clements 6105 E. Sahara Ave, Space 178, Las Vegas, Nevada bigrichie35@gmail.com Dated: April 22, 2026 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order — Case No. G-17-047742-M (Aug. 23, 2023) 2. Amanda C. v. Clifford C. (In re C.A.C.), No. 86229 (Nev. Aug. 23, 2024) — Nevada Supreme Court Order of Reversal and Remand