had counsel. For months thereafter, A.G. was kept from Kory’s custody not because of any findings of neglect by Kory, but because the juvenile court could not determine the nature and extent of Kory’s drug use or whether it would affect his ability to parent the child based upon Kory’s inconsistent compliance with the drug screening and the other terms of the case plan—a case plan that Kory should not have been required to complete in the first place. While we recognize that the child’s health and safety is a paramount concern in the government’s efforts to preserve and reunify the family unit, it must be balanced with the protection of a parent’s constitutional rights. NRS 432B.393(1) and (2); see Matter of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 801-02, 8 P.3d 126, 133-34 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Social Services has an obligation to ensure
holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents recognizing that noncustodial parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing that in parental termination proceedings the fundamental liberty interest of parents must be balanced with societys interest in protecting the welfare of children recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children holding that natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children