Nevada family-law case summaries

This case concerns a fight over custody and visitation of a child after the child's father died. On one side were the child's paternal grandmother (Colt) and aunt (Kanter). On the other side was the child's mother (Plummer). The grandmother went to court asking for custody of the child, or at least the right to visit; the aunt later joined the case. After a lengthy legal battle and a multi-day trial, the trial judge decided in the mother's favor, giving her full custody and refusing to grant custody or visitation to the grandmother and aunt. The grandmother and aunt appealed. Their main argument was that no one ever proved the mother was a fit parent, and that the trial judge ignored evidence suggesting the mother was unfit — specifically, allegations that the mother had abused and neglected the child, struggled with addiction, and had mental health problems. The Court of Appeals disagreed with that characterization of the trial record. When a judge decides child custody, the appeals court does not redo the decision from scratch; it only checks whether the trial judge "abused" his discretion and whether the decision was backed by enough evidence that a reasonable person could accept it. The guiding principle in these cases is always what is best for the child. On the custody question, the law strongly favors placing a child with a fit parent. A non-parent (like a grandmother or aunt) can only win custody over a parent by showing the parent is unfit or that other extraordinary circumstances exist. The appeals court found that the trial judge had, in fact, carefully considered the evidence about the mother. The judge reviewed the extensive Child Protective Services file, noting that out of more than 30 referrals investigated by CPS, only one incident was substantiated, and that occurred several years before this lawsuit began. The judge acknowledged the mother had struggled with addiction but found no evidence of recent addiction-related incidents, and observed that some of her behavioral problems appeared to stem from the volatile relationship with the grandmother and aunt and from the stress of the litigation. The judge also noted one 2018 incident where the mother was detained on a mental-health hold while extremely intoxicated, but found no other relevant mental-health evidence. In the end, the trial judge concluded that the evidence did not show the mother was unfit, so the grandmother and aunt failed to overcome the legal preference favoring the parent. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion in that conclusion. On the visitation question, grandparents and certain others who have lived with a child and built a meaningful relationship can ask a court for visitation if a parent has unreasonably denied it. But when a parent has denied visitation, the law assumes visitation is not in the child's best interest, and the people seeking visitation must overcome that assumption with strong ("clear and convincing") evidence. The appeals court noted it was unclear whether the child had ever lived with the aunt (which affects whether she was even eligible to seek visitation), but because the trial judge addressed the request on its merits, the appeals court did the same. The trial judge found that although the mother had sometimes denied contact, she was generally compliant with visitation. The judge weighed the statutory factors and found most of them actually favored the grandmother and aunt, and recognized several ways a relationship with them would benefit the child. But the judge had serious concerns about one factor — the grandmother and aunt's willingness and ability to encourage a relationship between the child and his mother. The judge found a high degree of animosity and conflict between the parties, to which the child was constantly exposed, and concluded that this conflict and the appellants' inability to foster the parent-child bond outweighed the factors in their favor. The appeals court again found no abuse of discretion. Finally, to the extent the grandmother and aunt argued the trial judge gave improper weight to the evidence, the appeals court said it will not re-weigh witness credibility or the evidence on appeal.