Nevada family-law case summaries

Paul Bertuccini and Lisa Esposito have one child together, born in 2011. They divorced in 2014 and agreed to share joint legal custody, with Esposito having primary physical custody. The parenting-time arrangement was modified in 2015 and 2016, ultimately giving Bertuccini roughly ten days a month with the child. In 2021, Bertuccini asked the court for joint physical custody. He argued that circumstances had changed enough to justify revisiting custody. Specifically, he claimed: (1) the child, now approaching puberty and middle school, had changed mental and emotional needs; (2) both parents' work schedules had changed, leaving Esposito with less time and him with more; (3) the parents continued to struggle with custody exchanges, coparenting, school decisions, and extracurricular activities; and (4) Esposito was, in his view, encouraging a negative relationship between the child, Bertuccini, and the child's step-sister. Esposito disagreed with these factual claims and argued that merely more time passing was not enough to require a change in custody. After the written filings and a hearing that did not include the presentation of evidence, the district court issued a six-page order denying the motion. The court reasoned that "the passage of time and/or the age of the child are not factors creating a substantial change of circumstances," and that Bertuccini therefore had not made the preliminary showing (called a "prima facie case") needed to trigger a full hearing where evidence would be presented. The Court of Appeals disagreed with how the district court handled the motion. It found that the lower court focused only on the passage-of-time point and never addressed the several other issues Bertuccini raised - the child's schooling and emotional needs, the changed work schedules, the parents' ability to cooperate, and the child's relationship with her step-sibling. Under recent Nevada caselaw, when deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, a court is generally supposed to accept the moving parent's specific factual allegations as true and must explain its reasoning. Because the district court did not address these other allegations, the Court of Appeals concluded it had abused its discretion (used its authority improperly) and had not given an adequate explanation. The Court of Appeals reversed the denial and sent the case back ("remanded") so the district court can make more complete findings, and it directed the lower court to apply the guidance from a case called Myers v. Haskins in any further proceedings.

This case is about whether parents can undo a court-approved visitation arrangement with a grandparent simply because they are the parents. After Roger Rennels divorced in 2001, he and his daughter Martina lived for five months with his mother, Audrey Rennels, in northern California, and Martina and Audrey developed a close relationship that continued after Roger and Martina moved away. According to Audrey, Roger stopped allowing Martina to see her in June 2004, so Audrey went to court under NRS 125C.050, a Nevada statute that lets a nonparent ask for visitation rights with a child. Before the court could hold an evidentiary hearing, Audrey and Roger settled. They signed a stipulation - a formal written agreement - stating that "all pending issues" between them were resolved, and the court entered an order adopting it. Under that order, Audrey received four supervised visits per year, a guardian ad litem (a person appointed to represent the child's interests) was appointed, and a psychologist would counsel the family. If the guardian ad litem and the psychologist concluded supervision was no longer needed, Roger agreed to abide by that determination. The parties followed this arrangement until 2008, when the psychologist, Dr. John Paglini, recommended unsupervised visits and Roger refused. Audrey asked the court to enforce the order; Roger and his wife Jennifer (who had adopted Martina in 2006) countered by asking the court to end Audrey's visitation entirely, relying on Troxel v. Granville, a U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizing that fit parents are presumed to act in their children's best interests. The district court sided with the parents and terminated Audrey's visitation. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It held, first, that the stipulated visitation order was a final judgment - meaning it resolved the dispute and could not simply be relitigated on the same facts. Second, the court held that while the parental presumption applies when a nonparent first seeks visitation, it no longer controls once a court has approved a visitation arrangement. At that point, a parent who wants to change or end the arrangement must satisfy the same two-part test that applies when parents seek to modify custody between themselves: show (1) a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare, and (2) that the change serves the child's best interest. Because neither the parents nor the district court identified any substantial change in circumstances - the court pointed only to increased "acrimony" between the parties, which the Supreme Court said is not enough by itself - the termination order was reversed. The stipulated visitation order remains in effect, and on remand the district court must appoint a new guardian ad litem before deciding whether Audrey's visitation should be modified or terminated under the new test.