Judge Gerald Hardcastle issued a decision this afternoon (June 22) in the matter of the parental rights of Tamara Bergeron. The State of Nevada sought to terminate Bergeron’s parental rights and severe her from her daughter Brittney. Judge Hardcastle denied the state’s request to terminate parental rights.
In an excerpt from the ruling, Hardcastle states:
The reunification process has been ended by TAMARA’s incarceration. BRITTNEY will not be physically reunified with her mother during her minority. To the degree that BRITTNEY is concerned about being returned to her mother’s care and living the life she knew prior to January 2003, that concern is satisfied. BRITTNEY will not be physically reunified with her mother.
But is it in BRITTNEY’s best interests to terminate TAMARA’s parental rights? The Department case manager says that it is not. This Court believes that it is not. BRITTNEY’s best interests are served by allowing TAMARA and BRITTNEY to continue to have a parent-child relationship, even if that relationship is other than traditional.
BRITTNEY’s love for her mother is so substantial that loss of that relationship would be detrimental to BRITTNEY. BRITTNEY’s desires for stability and safety have been assured. Her desire for a continuing relationship with her mother can be assured by denial of this Petition. It is simply not in her best interest to remove her mother from her life.
The hope is that free of the influence of the notoriety of this case, BRITTNEY and TAMARA will have a future relationship mutually agreeable to both. BRITTNEY also has the great benefit of having a truly unique foster family. Both TAMARA and the foster family love BRITTNEY. Both can be important in her life. There is no reason to choose one over the other. There is certainly no reason to exclude one over the other.
Since the mother’s rights are not terminated, there is no interest in terminating the father’s parental rights at this point.
Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED. This Decision shall constitute Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well as the final Judgment in this matter.
This decision comes as a result of a trial held in Dept. D of the Family Court before Judge Gerald Hardcastle which concluded on June 16, 2006.
