Nevada family-law case summaries

This is a very short procedural order, not a decision on the merits of any dispute. Julia Chumak had filed an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court in a family-law matter involving Jose von Buchwald. Before the court reached any questions about the substance of the case, both sides agreed to end the appeal. In legal terms, they filed a "stipulation" - a formal agreement between the parties. Based on that agreement, the court dismissed (ended) the appeal. The court also stated that each side would pay its own costs and attorney fees rather than one side reimbursing the other. The order does not explain what the original dispute was about, what the lower court decided, or why Chumak appealed. It simply records that the parties agreed to stop the appeal and that the court granted that request.

This is a very short procedural order, not a decision on the merits of any dispute. The two parties in this family-court case agreed between themselves (a "stipulation") that the appeal should end. Because both sides agreed, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, citing NRAP 42, the appellate rule governing voluntary dismissals. The court also ordered that "The parties shall bear theit own costs and attorney fees" - meaning each side pays its own legal expenses rather than one side paying the other's. The order says nothing about what the underlying family-law dispute involved or who would have prevailed; those questions were never decided by the appellate court.

Daniel and Stephanie Rubidoux married in 2014 and had one daughter, born in 2016. Their relationship was turbulent; they separated and reconciled several times before their final separation in November 2019. Stephanie filed for divorce in early 2020, describing several incidents she said involved domestic violence. One incident happened in early 2019 in the garage of the family home, where a surveillance camera recorded a fight. Daniel, who was intoxicated, tried to stop Stephanie from leaving, ripped items from her hand, pushed her against the garage door, and advanced toward her. Stephanie tried to push him off and at one point held a child's picnic table between them to keep her distance. Stephanie later showed the video to law enforcement, and Daniel was charged with domestic violence. Daniel entered a deferred adjudication, completed the required conditions, and the justice court dismissed the case. The parties disputed whether Daniel had pleaded "guilty" or "no contest," but the court found this difference immaterial because, even without a formal conviction, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that domestic violence occurred - and no one challenged that specific finding on appeal. During the 14 months the couple was separated and sharing custody under temporary court arrangements, the record showed no violence or fighting. Their exchanges of the child were peaceful, even though Stephanie at times kept the child during Daniel's scheduled parenting time because of the COVID-19 pandemic. At a two-day trial, both parents testified. Stephanie raised numerous domestic violence allegations and voiced concern about the child's safety around Daniel when she was not present. Daniel testified that Stephanie actively participated in the fighting and often antagonized him, and he offered evidence suggesting she was not afraid of him. Stephanie acknowledged that Daniel never physically harmed the child and that the child loves him. The district court found that Stephanie was generally not afraid of Daniel and often participated in and antagonized the conflicts, but it also found that the garage fight rose to the level of domestic violence and that no antagonizing remark could justify how Daniel physically handled Stephanie. Because of that finding, the court applied a legal presumption under NRS 125C.0035(5) - a starting assumption that giving Daniel joint or sole physical custody would not be in the child's best interest. The court then concluded that Daniel had overcome (rebutted) that presumption, pointing to the parties' successful shared parenting during their 14-month separation, the absence of violence after they separated, and evidence that many of the fights were two-sided. The court awarded joint physical custody and granted the divorce. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It declined Stephanie's request to require a domestic-violence perpetrator to first complete something like an anger management course or a 12-step program before being allowed to rebut the presumption, noting that Nevada - unlike California - does not require such a condition. The court acknowledged the district court's order was imperfect, including that it seemed to blend together two parts of the statute and did not clearly tie the domestic-violence factor to the child's best interest. But given the deferential standard the appellate court applies, and because the violence was not directed at the child, Stephanie was not injured, and the child had a good relationship with both parents, the court found no abuse of discretion. It also concluded the order was not internally contradictory and that it satisfied the statute's requirement to make findings protecting the parent and child, because it maintained the same exchange protocol that had produced 14 months of safe, peaceful interactions.