Nevada family-law case summaries

Brian Anderson and Sarah Byrd are the parents of a child, D.A., born in 2009. Anderson lives in Elko, Nevada, and originally had primary physical custody (meaning the child lived with him most of the time), while Byrd, who lives in Salem, Oregon, had parenting time during certain holidays and school breaks. In December 2020, while the child was staying with Byrd, the Nevada Division of Child and Family Services told Byrd that the child's half-sister had reported to a school counselor that Anderson had been abusing the children and drinking alcohol to excess. In January 2021, when Anderson drove to Oregon to pick up the child under the existing custody order, Byrd refused to let the child go. Anderson filed a motion asking the court to order Byrd to explain herself (an order to show cause), which the court granted. Byrd then filed a motion to change the custody order, and Anderson opposed it. The trial court held a two-day evidentiary hearing in October 2022. At the start, Anderson raised an objection because he knew the judge from high school more than twenty years earlier. The judge said there had been no contact between them since high school and that she held no ill will toward him. Anderson said he believed the judge and was ready to proceed. The court heard testimony from several witnesses, including Anderson, Byrd, and two of Anderson's ex-girlfriends. Byrd testified that Anderson would not tell her about the child's medical and dental appointments or school meetings, and described an incident where Anderson forcibly dragged the child down a driveway. Anderson denied dragging the child but admitted he "pushed [D.A.] in the truck," that he did not tell Byrd about an injury the child suffered at football practice, that he used a sledgehammer to destroy a phone Byrd had bought for the child, and that he struck the child with a belt. One ex-girlfriend, Heidi Harter, testified about Anderson's drinking during their relationship. After the hearing, the court granted Byrd's request to change custody. It found that Anderson had "demonstrated an absolute inability to co-parent" and that this amounted to a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare. The court then examined the factors Nevada law requires for deciding a child's best interest and concluded that the child's best interest would be served by giving Byrd primary physical custody, with Anderson getting parenting time on certain holidays and school breaks. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that custody decisions are reviewed for "abuse of discretion" - meaning the appeals court will not overturn the decision unless it was unsupported by the evidence or clearly wrong - and that appellate judges do not re-weigh the evidence or second-guess which witnesses the trial judge believed. The court found the "inability to co-parent" finding was supported by the evidence, and noted that even if that finding were wrong, it would not matter because Anderson himself conceded that a substantial change in circumstances existed. On the custody award, the court noted that the trial judge had considered all the required best-interest factors, found that several favored Byrd, and that Anderson did not challenge those findings other than pointing to Byrd's act of withholding the child in 2020 - which the trial court had already counted in Anderson's favor. On the alcohol testimony, the court held that the ex-girlfriend gave a permissible lay opinion based on her own observations, not a medical diagnosis, and that the custody order did not even rely on Anderson's alcohol use. On recusal, the court held that Anderson never actually asked the judge to step aside, that his argument was arguably waived, and that simply having attended school together more than twenty years earlier did not show the kind of bias that would require the judge to recuse herself.

Sandra and Curtis Stewart married in 2010 and have three minor children. During the marriage, Curtis worked in mining and Sandra was a stay-at-home mother. In 2018, Curtis filed for divorce and asked for sole custody of the children, saying Sandra was unfit because of mental health issues, addiction, and erratic behavior. Sandra responded by asking for joint custody, child support, and alimony (financial support paid by one former spouse to the other). After years of contested custody litigation, the case went to trial in January 2021. The trial judge awarded Curtis sole legal and primary physical custody and gave Sandra supervised parenting time. The judge also decided Sandra had been deliberately earning less than she could ("willfully underemployed"), assigned her an assumed income for calculating child support, ordered her to pay a small amount in child support arrears (past-due support), awarded her a limited amount of alimony, and awarded Curtis a large sum in attorney fees. When dividing the couple's property, the judge gave Curtis the marital home and most of the vehicles, tools, and guns, while making Curtis responsible for the community debt, and gave Sandra a retirement account and one handgun. Sandra appealed, challenging almost everything. The Court of Appeals split its decision. On custody, the court sided with the trial judge. Sandra argued the judge did not make enough findings and that the judge was really punishing her rather than protecting the children. The Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that the trial judge had gone through the statutory "best interest of the child" factors in detail, found that eight of twelve favored Curtis, and grounded the decision in concerns such as alleged domestic violence in Sandra's home and Sandra's arrest for driving under the influence with a crash during her parenting time. Because the decision was supported by the evidence and was not made to punish Sandra, the court affirmed it. The court also noted Sandra did not challenge the child support ruling on appeal, so that ruling was treated as waived and affirmed too. On the other three issues, the court found problems and sent them back to the trial court. First, on alimony, the trial judge did not explain how it applied the eleven factors the law requires, so the appeals court reversed the alimony award and ordered the trial court to do the required analysis. Second, on the division of property, the judge gave Curtis a much larger share without adequately explaining why an unequal split was justified, and never calculated what Sandra's share of the marital home would be. The court also said the judge improperly tried to balance things out by treating attorney fees and child support arrears as if they were part of the couple's shared property, which they were not. So the court reversed the property division and sent it back. Third, on attorney fees, the judge awarded Curtis fees without going through the required legal factors, including the difference in the parties' incomes, so the court reversed that too.

Nathan Robertson and Jessica Gardner were never married but have one child together. In 2021, Robertson asked the district court to give him joint legal custody (shared authority to make major decisions about the child) and primary physical custody (the child living mostly with him), along with child support. Gardner responded and asked for the same things for herself. Each parent argued the other was unfit, and each submitted documents claiming the other had committed acts of domestic violence in front of the child. After a trial, the district court gave Gardner sole legal custody and primary physical custody, set Robertson's support payment at $905 per month, and ordered him to pay $10,450 in past-due support (arrears). The trial judge noted that the law would have supported a joint legal custody arrangement, but appears to have given Gardner sole legal custody because Robertson had not obtained a mental health evaluation. Robertson appealed, arguing the evidence did not support the court's decision. The Court of Appeals explained that when a court decides custody, its written order must connect the child's best interest - supported by specific findings - to the custody decision it makes. The appeals court found that the district court's order did not do this. The court had recognized that the law favored joint legal custody, but made no findings about whether the parents could communicate, cooperate, or compromise for the child's benefit, and did not explain how giving Gardner sole legal custody served the child's best interest. The same problem affected the physical custody decision: the court awarded primary physical custody to Gardner without discussing the best-interest factors. And to the extent the court relied on claims that Robertson committed domestic violence, it did not make the specific findings required by law that acts of domestic violence occurred and that the custody arrangement adequately protects the child. Because the custody rulings lacked the required findings, the Court of Appeals reversed them and sent the case back for the district court to make specific written findings. Since the child support amount and arrears depend on the custody arrangement, the court also reversed those for reconsideration. The court noted that the arrears figure appeared to be miscalculated - $10,450 over that period matches a $950 monthly obligation rather than the $905 the court ordered. In the meantime, the existing custody arrangement from the November 23, 2021, order stays in place until the district court revisits the matter.

This case is about what a trial judge must put in writing (or say in open court) when permanently ending a parent's legal relationship with a child. A father's child was removed from his care and placed in the legal custody of the State of Nevada's child-welfare agency, DCFS. DCFS then asked the district court to terminate the father's parental rights - a step that permanently severs the legal parent-child relationship. To win, DCFS had to prove two things by "clear and convincing evidence" (a high standard of proof, more demanding than the usual civil standard): first, that ending the father's rights was in the child's best interest, and second, that some form of "parental fault" existed - such as abandonment, neglect, or unfitness. The district court held a two-day trial, asked the parties to submit closing arguments in writing, and then issued a written order - drafted by the State - terminating the father's rights. The problem, according to the Nevada Supreme Court, was that the order contained no actual factual findings. On the child's best interest, it said only that "[t]he best interests of [the child] will be served by terminating any parental rights of [appellant]." On parental fault, it listed six grounds that simply repeated the language of the termination statutes, "without explanation as to any corresponding evidence." Because the trial court had also deferred its ruling until after written closing arguments, it never made any oral findings on the record either. The Supreme Court explained that without specific findings, an appellate court cannot tell whether "substantial evidence" - the level of proof needed to sustain the ruling on appeal - actually supports the decision. Merely reciting the statutory grounds does not qualify as findings, because such statements "do not explain, based on the record evidence, why the district court found that the statutory grounds for termination existed." The court therefore reversed the termination order and sent the case back to the district court to enter its findings. Importantly, the court did not decide whether the father's rights should or should not be terminated; as it stated, "We make no comment on the merits of the underlying proceeding."