Nevada family-law case summaries

This case involves a father, Terrell Avalon Lancaster, who was ordered to pay child support for his minor child with Kenita Lamar Bauerle. The Clark County District Attorney's Family Support Division (a government office that handles child support enforcement) started the process in September 2022. Lancaster signed a document accepting service of the paperwork in November 2022, and later signed an "order upon consent" - a document in which he acknowledged he was the child's father and agreed to pay child support and past-due support (arrears). That order was formally entered by the court in December 2022. In July 2025, DAFS asked the court to enforce the order, claiming Lancaster had not been paying. Lancaster fought back, asking the court to throw out (set aside) the order he had signed. He gave several reasons: that he was pressured into signing because a DAFS representative allegedly threatened him with arrest and loss of his driver's license; that the order was the product of a "bait and switch"; and that he was tricked into signing the acceptance of service and was never actually given the paperwork, which he argued meant the court never had proper authority (jurisdiction) over him. A hearing master (an official who hears the matter and makes a recommendation to the judge) recommended denying Lancaster's request. The hearing master found that some of Lancaster's arguments were filed too late - beyond the six-month deadline that applies to certain requests to undo a judgment - and that Lancaster had accepted service and was properly served. The hearing master also found that Lancaster gave up his right to object to the court's authority over him because he did not raise that objection in a timely way. The district court agreed with the hearing master, and Lancaster appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that the district court has authority over child support cases, and that Lancaster did not show otherwise. On the question of authority over him personally, the court found the hearing master's conclusion - that Lancaster accepted service and was properly served - was supported by adequate evidence. The court also noted that Lancaster waived (gave up) his ability to challenge that authority by not raising it in a timely manner. The court found his fraud-based argument was filed too late under the six-month rule. The court also rejected Lancaster's claim that the record was "forged" because the hearing master had said out loud during the hearing that he would pause (stay) the matter but then issued a written decision denying relief. The court explained that a judge's spoken statement in court is not binding, and a judge may enter a written order that differs from what was said aloud. Finally, the court declined to address Lancaster's argument about "prosecutorial misconduct," finding he did not explain it clearly enough for the court to consider it. The court also denied an emergency motion Lancaster filed to strike the record on appeal.