Nevada family-law case summaries

Brian Anderson and Sarah Byrd are the parents of a child, D.A., born in 2009. Anderson lives in Elko, Nevada, and originally had primary physical custody (meaning the child lived with him most of the time), while Byrd, who lives in Salem, Oregon, had parenting time during certain holidays and school breaks. In December 2020, while the child was staying with Byrd, the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services told Byrd that the child's half-sister had reported to a school counselor that Anderson had been abusing the children and drinking alcohol to excess. In January 2021, when Anderson drove to Oregon to pick up the child under the existing custody order, Byrd refused to let the child go. Anderson filed a motion asking the court to order Byrd to explain herself (an order to show cause), which the court granted. Byrd then filed a motion to change the custody order, and Anderson opposed it. The trial court held a two-day evidentiary hearing in October 2022. At the start, Anderson raised an objection because he knew the judge from high school more than twenty years earlier. The judge said there had been no contact between them since high school and that she held no ill will toward him. Anderson said he believed the judge and was ready to proceed. The court heard testimony from several witnesses, including Anderson, Byrd, and two of Anderson's ex-girlfriends. Byrd testified that Anderson would not tell her about the child's medical and dental appointments or school meetings, and described an incident where Anderson forcibly dragged the child down a driveway. Anderson denied dragging the child but admitted he "pushed [D.A.] in the truck," that he did not tell Byrd about an injury the child suffered at football practice, that he used a sledgehammer to destroy a phone Byrd had bought for the child, and that he struck the child with a belt. One ex-girlfriend, Heidi Harter, testified about Anderson's drinking during their relationship. After the hearing, the court granted Byrd's request to change custody. It found that Anderson had "demonstrated an absolute inability to co-parent" and that this amounted to a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare. The court then examined the factors Nevada law requires for deciding a child's best interest and concluded that the child's best interest would be served by giving Byrd primary physical custody, with Anderson getting parenting time on certain holidays and school breaks. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that custody decisions are reviewed for "abuse of discretion" - meaning the appeals court will not overturn the decision unless it was unsupported by the evidence or clearly wrong - and that appellate judges do not re-weigh the evidence or second-guess which witnesses the trial judge believed. The court found the "inability to co-parent" finding was supported by the evidence, and noted that even if that finding were wrong, it would not matter because Anderson himself conceded that a substantial change in circumstances existed. On the custody award, the court noted that the trial judge had considered all the required best-interest factors, found that several favored Byrd, and that Anderson did not challenge those findings other than pointing to Byrd's act of withholding the child in 2020 - which the trial court had already counted in Anderson's favor. On the alcohol testimony, the court held that the ex-girlfriend gave a permissible lay opinion based on her own observations, not a medical diagnosis, and that the custody order did not even rely on Anderson's alcohol use. On recusal, the court held that Anderson never actually asked the judge to step aside, that his argument was arguably waived, and that simply having attended school together more than twenty years earlier did not show the kind of bias that would require the judge to recuse herself.