Nevada family-law case summaries

This case concerns a long-running custody dispute over one child, PJ, born in December 2018. The parents, Maila Likua and Paulino Gomez, married in 2016, lived together in Mesquite, Nevada, and separated in February 2022. Gomez filed for divorce, and a three-year custody battle followed. Early on, the court split the financial issues from the custody issues. In June 2022, the parents agreed to share legal and physical custody on an alternating three-week schedule until a custody trial could be held. After that trial, the court's first custody order (September 2023) gave the parents joint legal custody but gave Likua primary physical custody and permission to move PJ permanently to Molokai, Hawaii, while Gomez kept substantial parenting time. Gomez asked the court to reconsider; that request was denied, and he appealed. While that appeal was pending, Gomez asked the trial court for permission to change custody again, claiming Likua had taken PJ out of preschool and left Hawaii without telling him from April to mid-May 2024, and had concealed the child's whereabouts. Because of the seriousness of those allegations, the trial court issued what is called an "indicative ruling" (a signal that it would reconsider if given the chance), and with the supreme court's approval, the case was sent back to the trial court to address custody and relocation again. After a second custody hearing in November 2024, the trial court reversed course: it gave Gomez primary physical custody (with Likua keeping substantial parenting time) and allowed PJ to move back to Nevada. The court found that PJ's school attendance had dropped, his academic performance lagged behind his peers, and he had ongoing behavioral and focus problems. It also found that communication between the parents had broken down and that Likua had repeatedly interfered with Gomez's parenting time, including on Father's Day 2024, and had traveled with PJ without telling Gomez. On appeal, Likua first argued that the trial court unfairly placed extra duties and burdens on her as the primary custodial parent, violating her right to a fair process. The Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that both parents fully briefed and argued their positions, presented evidence and witnesses, and made closing arguments. The court noted that, because Gomez was the one asking to change custody, he carried the burden of proof, not Likua. The three passages Likua pointed to simply described the ordinary obligations of a parent who shares legal custody — such as keeping the other parent informed of the child's location and honoring scheduled parenting time, including required FaceTime calls. Likua next argued that the trial court got the changed-circumstances and best-interest analyses wrong. The Court of Appeals applied a deferential standard, meaning it would not second-guess factual findings supported by enough evidence that a reasonable person could accept them. It found that PJ's academic decline and Likua's interference with Gomez's parenting time were enough to support a substantial change in circumstances, and that the trial court had made specific findings on each of the twelve best-interest factors, three of which favored modification. On relocation, the Court of Appeals made an unusual observation: the relocation statute technically did not even apply here, because Gomez (the parent seeking the move) was the non-custodial parent already living in Nevada, and the move was back to Nevada rather than away from it. But because no one raised this point and the trial court treated the statute as a guide, the appeals court reviewed the relocation analysis as instructive and found the trial court's findings were supported by the evidence. Finally, the court declined to address Likua's request for community funds to pay attorney fees, because the orders that actually denied or deferred those fees were not the ones she listed in her notice of appeal. The court also declined to address her claim of judicial bias, finding it moot because the case was being affirmed rather than sent back, and noting that even on the merits the bias claim would fail.

Alan and Julie divorced in 2019. As part of the divorce, the court divided their property, awarded Julie alimony (spousal support), and made findings about a surplus of tax credits the IRS was holding that belonged to the couple. The alimony award started at $2,500 per month for seven years, then dropped to $1 per month for ten more years. The court also ordered Alan to give Julie yearly information about all of his sources of income. Later, Julie went back to court, saying Alan had not given her the income information he was ordered to provide, had not divided the tax credits, and had failed to make his alimony payments. During the fact-gathering (discovery) part of the case, documents surfaced showing Alan's income had grown substantially — a loan application listing monthly income over $20,000, and a 2021 tax form showing more than $254,000 in self-employment income plus another $115,662 in a separate category. Julie also produced Alan's 2018 tax return, which showed the IRS held a tax credit of $67,557, meaning her half would be $33,778.50. The court repeatedly ordered Alan to produce his recent tax returns, but he did not. Because he refused to disclose this information, the court granted Julie's request for sanctions: it barred Alan from using evidence at the upcoming hearing that he had not turned over, and said it would draw an "adverse inference" (an assumption against him) about the information he withheld. The court also warned Alan that he was required to appear at the hearing. At the June 23, 2023 hearing, Julie testified, but Alan did not show up. Because Alan failed to produce his tax returns for 2019 through 2022, the court found he had not met his burden to show he could not afford to pay alimony. The court raised his alimony to $3,500 per month for the remaining 161 months. Then, pointing to Alan's repeated failures to follow orders and to pay, the court decided to convert those monthly payments into a single lump sum of $563,000, reasoning this was necessary to make sure Julie actually received her support. The court also awarded Julie her $33,778.50 share of the tax credits, found Alan owed $30,500 in back alimony, and held him in contempt. On appeal, Alan argued the court went too far and essentially rewrote the divorce decree, that it should not have believed Julie's testimony, and that the alimony would extend into his retirement years and be more than he could afford. He also argued there were actually zero tax credits left, and that the court broke a local rule by adopting Julie's proposed orders without letting him review them first. The Court of Appeals affirmed. A central reason: Alan never provided the appeals court with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, even though he was told he needed to. Without the transcript, the court explained, it had to presume the missing record supported the district court's decisions, and it could not meaningfully review his challenges to the factual findings. The court also emphasized that it does not re-weigh evidence or second-guess a trial court's decisions about which witnesses to believe. On the local-rule issue, the court agreed that if the district court adopted Julie's proposed orders without giving Alan a chance to respond, that was error — but it found the error harmless because Alan had not shown that a different result would have been reached without it.

Audria Ruscitti and Ian Druckman had a child together but never married. Shortly after the child's birth, Ian signed a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity — a legal document that establishes a man as a child's father without going to court. The couple lived together and raised the child jointly, and even discussed moving out of Nevada together, but they separated before doing so. After Ian moved out, Audria moved to California with the child for better job opportunities — without Ian's knowledge or consent. Ian then asked a Nevada court to order the child's return and to give him joint legal and primary physical custody. Audria asked the court to award her sole legal and primary physical custody and to let the child stay in California with her. The district court gave both parents joint legal custody, awarded Audria primary physical custody, and approved her relocation. Ian appealed. The central question was what custody rights unmarried parents have when paternity has been legally established but no court has ever issued a custody order. The Nevada Supreme Court held that in that situation, both parents have equal custody rights. Quoting the statute, the court emphasized that "The parent and child relationship extends equally to every child and to every parent, regardless of the marital status of the parents." NRS 126.031(1). The court also addressed Nevada's relocation statute, NRS 125C.200, which requires a custodial parent to get the other parent's consent or court permission before moving a child out of state. Because no court had ever awarded either parent primary physical custody, that statute technically did not apply. But the court held that its policy should still guide these situations: when parents have equal custody rights, one parent may not move the child out of state over the other parent's objection without a court order. The proper course is to file a motion for primary physical custody along with a request to relocate. A parent who moves the child unlawfully faces consequences — for example, the court deciding custody should not consider anything about the child's new life in the other state (new school, friends, or routine) when deciding what is best for the child. To get permission to relocate, a parent must first show "a sensible, good faith reason for the move." If that showing is made, the court then decides custody and relocation based on the child's best interest, incorporating five factors from an earlier case called Schwartz v. Schwartz — factors such as whether the move will improve the child's and parent's quality of life, whether each parent's motives are honorable, and whether the parent staying behind will have a realistic opportunity to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child. Applying these rules, the majority concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court had found a good-faith reason for the move (Audria's job opportunities in California and the parties' earlier plans to move out of state together), had considered the relevant best-interest and Schwartz factors, and had not relied on any facts arising from the child's time in California. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the custody and relocation rulings. However, it reversed the award of attorney fees imposed on Ian as a sanction for a supposedly frivolous motion to stay, concluding his motion "was based on reasonable grounds because he sought stability for his child," and remanded that issue for reconsideration. The court rejected as meritless Ian's additional arguments that the district court improperly limited his evidence and that the judge should be disqualified for bias. Two justices dissented. They agreed unmarried parents have equal custody rights, but argued Audria's removal of the child without Ian's consent or court permission was wrongful, that the district court should have weighed that conduct against her, and that the case should be sent back for a new custody determination.