Nevada family-law case summaries

Renelyn Bautista and James Picone are the parents of a minor child and share joint physical custody under an agreement they reached and the district court approved. After that agreement, Bautista filed several motions asking the court to change the custody arrangement. The district court denied those motions and eventually appointed a "parenting coordinator" - a neutral third party who helps separated parents work out disputes about their child without having to come back to court each time. In the order Bautista challenges on appeal, the district court gave the parenting coordinator power not just to resolve small day-to-day disagreements (like scheduling) but also to make "substantive" changes to the custody plan - meaning changes big enough to shift how much time the child spends with each parent, or even to change which parent has primary custody. Bautista also filed a new motion asking the court to change custody because, she alleged, Picone was carrying on a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. To support that allegation, she submitted Facebook messages and emails between Picone and the girl in which, according to the opinion, Picone acknowledged the girl's age and discussed having a sexual relationship with her. She also submitted a third-party affidavit saying Picone intentionally rammed his car into another car that the minor child was riding in. The district court denied her motion without holding an evidentiary hearing - that is, without taking live testimony or evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed both orders. First, the court held that a district judge cannot hand off the power to make substantive custody decisions to a parenting coordinator. Under the Nevada Constitution, that decision-making power belongs to the judge. A parenting coordinator's authority must be limited to nonsubstantive matters such as scheduling and travel issues. Second, the court held that Bautista's allegations - especially the messages with a minor and the affidavit about the car incident - were enough to establish "adequate cause" requiring the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on her motion to modify custody. The case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.