Nevada family-law case summaries

This case involves a father, Miguel E.C., and his five minor children. In March 2025, the State of Nevada filed a petition claiming the children needed protection. According to the petition, Miguel made numerous allegations - later found to be false - that the children had been sexually abused by their mother and/or her relatives. The petition said these false claims caused the children to undergo medical examinations and to take part in investigations of their mother and relatives, that Miguel appeared to have coached the children to make the false claims, and that Miguel may have a mental health condition driving his behavior. The children were removed from Miguel's care and placed with their mother. The district court held an evidentiary hearing (a court session where witnesses testify and evidence is presented). Miguel attended and testified. Other witnesses, including detectives who investigated the sexual-abuse allegations, also testified, and documents were introduced. Afterward, the court found that Miguel had abused and neglected the children by causing them mental injury that was not accidental. The court concluded that Miguel coached and coerced the children into making false abuse allegations as a way to try to gain custody, and that this caused the children emotional harm. The court then gave the mother sole custody, ended the agency's custody, gave Miguel supervised parenting time, said any future custody changes would have to go through a regular custody court, and closed the case. On appeal, Miguel argued three main things: that the district court's findings were wrong because the State presented false evidence, that his due process rights were violated because the court made him rush through his testimony, and that the judge was biased against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed. A key reason was a record problem: Miguel filed a certificate stating he was not requesting transcripts of the hearing, so the appeals court never received a written record of what was said. Under Nevada rules, when an appellant does not provide the necessary transcript, the appeals court assumes the missing transcript supports the lower court's decision. Because of that, the court could not meaningfully review Miguel's arguments about the evidence, and it noted that appeals courts do not re-weigh a trial court's decisions about which witnesses to believe. On due process, the court found Miguel had received notice of the hearing, appeared with his lawyer, and testified - and again, without a transcript, the court presumed the record supported how the trial judge handled the time for testimony. On bias, the court found Miguel had not shown the judge relied on outside information or displayed the kind of deep-seated hostility that would make a fair decision impossible. The opinion also addressed a jurisdictional objection from the State. The State argued the appeal should be dismissed because the order with the factual findings was not a final, appealable order. The court rejected that, explaining that the order placing the children with their mother and closing the case resolved everything and was therefore a final appealable order, which also allowed the court to review earlier interlocutory (non-final) decisions.

Two people, Antwann B. and Jessica B., asked the Court of Appeals of Nevada to step in and stop or override what a lower court (the family division of the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County) was doing in a case involving child welfare under NRS Chapter 432B, which governs the protection of children from abuse and neglect. They filed their request without a lawyer, representing themselves. The type of relief they sought is called an "extraordinary writ" - specifically a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition. A writ of mandamus is a court order forcing a lower court or official to perform a duty the law requires, or to correct an arbitrary or capricious use of discretion. A writ of prohibition is an order stopping a lower court from acting beyond, or without, its jurisdiction (its legal authority to hear the case). The Court of Appeals explained that deciding whether to even consider this kind of petition is entirely within its own discretion, and that the people asking for the writ carry the burden of showing that such relief is justified. After reviewing the petition and the documents submitted with it, the court concluded that the petitioners had not shown that extraordinary relief was warranted, and it denied the petition. Because the court denied the petition, it also denied as moot (no longer requiring a decision) an emergency motion the petitioners had filed on October 24, 2025.

This case grew out of a child-welfare investigation. According to the opinion, DFS became involved with Eggleston's family after Laura Rodriguez, the mother of two of Eggleston's children, allegedly expressed suicidal thoughts in December 2014 and was hospitalized on a psychiatric hold due to substance abuse and mental health concerns. Four minor children lived in the home: Eggleston and Rodriguez's two young children (ages 4 and 2 at the time) and two of Rodriguez's children from a prior relationship (ages 11 and 8). A DFS supervisor investigated and, according to the opinion, found a history of inadequate supervision and neglect. The opinion states that Eggleston spent long hours away teaching, admitted leaving most parenting to Rodriguez, and did not actively co-parent even when home. Rodriguez struggled with heavy alcohol and cocaine use. DFS created a "present danger plan" requiring Eggleston and Rodriguez's two adult daughters to provide 24-hour supervision of Rodriguez; all three signed it. After Rodriguez was readmitted to the hospital and the adult daughters said they were returning to college and could no longer supervise, DFS removed the children. They now live with a maternal aunt and uncle in Illinois. Eggleston moved to England during the proceedings. In early 2015, DFS notified Eggleston that the maltreatment allegations against him were "substantiated" - meaning, as defined in the opinion, that a report was investigated and credible evidence of abuse or neglect exists. His name was placed on a central registry. Eggleston appealed within DFS, lost, and then requested a formal administrative hearing. The hearing was delayed for years, largely because of Eggleston's repeated continuance requests, and finally took place over WebEx in September 2020. Eggleston sought another last-minute continuance and asked the hearing officer to disqualify herself. She reserved ruling, then denied both requests. The opinion describes Eggleston frequently interrupting the proceedings, claiming he could not hear despite interruptions showing otherwise, saying he needed to leave to pick up a child, and eventually dropping off the call. The hearing officer proceeded, heard DFS's evidence, and upheld the substantiation. After the district court sent the case back once for the officer to write out the supporting facts more clearly, the officer issued an amended decision, and the district court denied Eggleston's petition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first rejected DFS's argument that the case should be thrown out because Eggleston served his petition improperly. The court found that Eggleston properly mailed his petition to the DFS interim director at the correct address on December 29, 2020, satisfying the service rules, so the district court had authority to hear the case. The court then addressed Eggleston's two main arguments. First, it held that Eggleston was given the opportunity required by law to present and challenge evidence, but chose not to participate. The court concluded he had ample time to prepare (five years of delays), was given chances to schedule the hearing, could have presented witnesses, and appeared to understand the proceedings despite claiming connectivity problems. Second, the court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of maltreatment. It explained that under Nevada law, abuse or neglect can be established when a child lacks proper care, control, or supervision - physical abuse is not required. The investigator's testimony about Rodriguez's substance abuse, Eggleston's absences, his failure to follow the safety plan, and specific incidents (including a child's near-drowning and children hiding in a bathroom from their intoxicated mother) supported the officer's conclusion. The court therefore affirmed.

Dana DeHesa worked for 14 years as a probation officer at the Clark County juvenile detention center. In August 2018, he was assigned to a unit that included a 15-year-old boy, referred to as J.J., who was on suicide watch. According to the opinion, DeHesa and J.J. engaged in "horseplay" - the two playing at slapping each other. When DeHesa went to close the door to J.J.'s room, J.J. stuck out his arm and tried to slap him. Even though DeHesa saw the boy's arm sticking out, he continued to close the door onto the forearm, pressing the door with both arms and his foot three times before letting J.J. pull his arm away. J.J. was injured. Several days later, J.J. told his parents about the incident during a visit. His parents raised concerns with a probation officer on duty. A report was eventually filed, and DFS investigated and "substantiated" - meaning it officially concluded there was enough evidence to support - an allegation of physical abuse. DeHesa appealed within the agency, lost, and then requested a formal administrative hearing. At that hearing, a hearing officer found DeHesa credible when he said the officers and juveniles engaged in horseplay and that he did not intend to hurt the boy. But the hearing officer concluded that intent to injure did not matter under the applicable state regulation, and that DeHesa's actions were "nonaccidental." The officer upheld the finding of abuse. DeHesa then asked the district court to review the decision. He argued two main things: first, that the hearing officer defined "nonaccidental" incorrectly by not requiring an intent to injure; and second, that his constitutional right to fair procedures (called "procedural due process") was violated because he could not use subpoenas to compel witnesses and documents that, he said, would have shown he properly reported the incident and that J.J. had a reason to lie. The district court rejected these arguments and denied his petition. Although DeHesa has since resigned, his name was placed on the Nevada State Central Registry - a state database of substantiated child abuse or neglect reports - which the opinion notes may adversely affect him. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that under the state regulation defining "nonaccidental," what matters is whether a person responsible for a child could reasonably foresee the harmful event - not whether the person intended to cause harm. Because DeHesa saw the boy's arm in the doorway, pressed the door repeatedly, worried about dislocating a shoulder or elbow, and admitted horseplay could be dangerous, the court concluded the injury was foreseeable and therefore nonaccidental. On the subpoena issue, the court explained that the record showed DeHesa never actually asked the hearing officer to issue a subpoena, so he did not preserve the issue for appeal. The court added that even if he had asked, it would not have changed things: the rule allowing subpoenas in regular court cases does not apply in administrative hearings, and Nevada law does not grant administrative agencies general subpoena power. The court also noted that the witness testimony he wanted would not have mattered because the finding of abuse rested on the injury being foreseeable, not on any failure to report. Finally, the court rejected DeHesa's claim that he was unfairly held to a higher standard than a parent would be. The court found the record showed he failed to follow the procedures required of all probation officers during shift changes, so he was held to the standard applicable to probation officers generally.

This case arose after the Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) received an anonymous hotline call in April 2010 alleging that Keaundra D.'s infant son, C.L.B., Jr., had been burned on the face. Keaundra told investigators that the burn occurred when her two-year-old daughter, A.D.L., reported that C.L.B., Jr. had "tried to kiss" a hot iron that fell off a dresser while Keaundra was in another room. DFS removed both children from Keaundra's care. One physician who examined the child in person, Dr. Neuman, found "no evidence of abuse." A different doctor, Dr. Mehta, who reviewed only photographs, opined the burn was deliberate. The juvenile court found the injury was nonaccidental and ordered Keaundra to follow a "case plan" - a list of steps she had to complete to get her children back. She maintained housing and a job, kept in touch with DFS, completed parenting classes, and finished a physical-abuse assessment and therapy. Her therapist testified that her risk of reoffending was low and that she showed none of the signs typical of an abusive parent. DFS itself reported that she had "successfully completed her case plan and has the knowledge and tools to effectively parent her children." But DFS still wanted her parental rights terminated, and the district court still terminated them, for one reason: Keaundra would not admit that she had deliberately held the iron to her son's face. Her case plan required her to "articulate" the "sequence of events" leading to the abuse "as sustained by the Court." Because she insisted the burn was accidental, the court treated her as out of compliance. DFS confirmed at trial that, had Keaundra admitted intentional abuse, it would not have sought termination. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves, not just in criminal trials but in any proceeding where their answers might be used against them in a future criminal case. Admitting that one held a hot iron to a child's face would expose a person to prosecution for child abuse under Nevada law (NRS 200.508). The court held that a parent cannot be forced to choose between admitting a crime and losing her children - that choice is unconstitutionally coercive. The court drew a line: a juvenile court may require a parent to participate in meaningful therapy, even if therapy works better when a parent acknowledges past conduct, and a parent who refuses meaningful therapy may face consequences. But a court cannot require, as a condition of keeping parental rights, that the parent expressly admit to a crime. The court also held that the evidence did not support termination on its own merits. Nevada law presumes termination is in a child's best interest when the child has been out of the home for 14 of 20 consecutive months, and presumes a parent has made only "token efforts" in similar circumstances. The court found Keaundra rebutted both presumptions: she stayed in regular phone contact, her mother brought the children to visit, A.D.L. cried and begged to go home to her mother, Keaundra helped support the children financially, and after the first termination order the children waited 17 months in foster care before being placed with relatives. Without the presumptions, there was not substantial evidence to terminate.

This case involves the termination of a father's parental rights to his two surviving children. Between 2006 and 2011, the family experienced seven separate incidents in which one of the three children swallowed foreign objects such as coins, magnets, and batteries. All occurred while the father, Arli, was at work and the mother, Abigail, was home with the children. One son, J.M., died in 2006 from undetermined causes. After three-year-old E.M.M. required surgery to remove a large battery lodged in his throat, doctors became concerned that Abigail was forcing the children to swallow objects and contacted child protective services. The doctors compared the size of the battery, for a child E.M.M.'s age, to an adult swallowing a golf ball. In November 2011, DFS removed A.P.M. and E.M.M. from the home and placed them in foster care. The juvenile court gave each parent a "case plan" - a written list of things they had to do (such as parenting classes and counseling) to try to get their children back. Arli completed his case plan quickly. Even so, in December 2012, DFS asked the court to terminate both parents' rights permanently. After a five-day hearing, the district court ordered termination, finding that Arli had been neglectful by not taking action to protect his children after the repeated swallowing incidents - including continuing to leave them alone with Abigail - and that termination was in the children's best interests. Abigail died while the appeal was pending, leaving only Arli's appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court addressed two new legal questions. First, it held that finishing a court-ordered case plan does not, by itself, prevent a court from terminating parental rights. A completed case plan can be persuasive evidence in the parent's favor, but Nevada law does not make it a shield against termination if the other legal grounds are satisfied. Second, it interpreted a Nevada statute that creates two legal presumptions when a child has lived outside the home "for 14 months of any 20 consecutive months": (1) the parent is presumed to have made only token efforts, and (2) termination is presumed to be in the child's best interest. Arli argued the district court had to wait the full 20 months before applying these presumptions. The Supreme Court disagreed - once the 14-month threshold is hit, the presumptions can apply right away. Here the children had been out of the home about 17 months, which was enough. Finally, the court held that "substantial evidence" - meaning enough credible evidence that a reasonable factfinder could agree - supported termination. The court pointed to Arli's failure to take protective action after seven serious swallowing incidents, his limited relationship with the children, and the foster parent's testimony that she had a close relationship with the children and wished to adopt them. The court noted that even with Abigail's death, Arli remained "unable to protect his children from danger, swallowing or otherwise." Two justices dissented in whole or in part. Justice Douglas, joined by Justice Cherry, would have remanded for a new best-interests hearing because Abigail - the apparent source of the danger - had died and Arli had completed his case plan. Justice Saitta agreed with most of the majority opinion but wrote separately to dissent on the parental-fault finding, viewing Arli's mistaken belief about Abigail and his completed case plan as not enough to amount to neglect.

This case is about a mother, Keaundra D., who lost her parental rights to her two children after her one-year-old son, C.B., was burned in the face by an iron. Keaundra told investigators she was the only adult home at the time; according to her trial testimony, she was in an attached bathroom getting ready for work when she heard the iron fall, and her older child told her that C.B. had tried to kiss the iron. After an anonymous call to a child abuse hotline, DFS investigated. Keaundra moved her family to Louisiana, which DFS characterized as a flight in an attempt to hide the children. The children were removed from her care, and DFS filed a petition for protective custody, alleging that Keaundra had either physically abused or negligently supervised C.B. At a hearing, a medical examiner, Dr. Mehta, testified that the shape of the burn was inconsistent with an accident and that the iron was deliberately held to C.B.'s face. Keaundra tried to counter that testimony with a report from Dr. Neuman, the physician who had personally examined C.B. in Louisiana. The hearing master - a court officer who conducts hearings and makes recommendations to a judge - refused to admit the report because it was not a certified copy, found that Keaundra physically abused C.B., and the juvenile court affirmed, concluding the injury was not accidental. Keaundra was then given a "case plan" - a set of requirements a parent must satisfy to be reunited with her children. She completed nearly all of it: parenting classes, stable housing and jobs, an assessment, and therapy. Her therapist testified that her behavior and demeanor had markedly changed and that her risk to reoffend was low. But DFS continued to recommend terminating her parental rights for one reason: she would not admit that she had deliberately held the iron to her son's face. DFS stated at trial that, with such an admission, it would not have sought termination. The district court ultimately terminated her rights, relying on the earlier finding that the injury was not accidental. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court did not decide whether Keaundra abused her child. Instead, it focused on a procedural point: Keaundra argued that Dr. Neuman's report was improperly excluded, and DFS never responded to that argument. Under Nevada's appellate rules, failing to respond to an argument can be treated as a "confession of error" - effectively conceding the point. The court concluded that DFS confessed error. Because every finding of parental fault in the case traced back to the abuse finding - which in turn rested on the improperly excluded rebuttal evidence - the court reversed the termination order and sent the case back for a new trial on Keaundra's parental rights. The court noted, but did not decide, Keaundra's separate argument that conditioning her parental rights on an admission of intentional harm violated her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The order terminating the father Christopher B.'s parental rights was not before the court because he did not appeal.