Nevada family-law case summaries

Kasey and Kimberly Loomis married in 2016 and have two young children. In November 2024, Kimberly filed for divorce, asking for sole legal and primary physical custody, with Kasey getting supervised time with the children. Kasey answered, asking for joint legal and joint physical custody. The court scheduled a case management conference (CMC) - an early hearing to organize a case - for February 6, 2025. The notice for that hearing, which was prepared and signed only by Kimberly's lawyer (not by the court), said the court would enter temporary custody orders at that hearing. At the CMC, the parties were sworn in. Kimberly's lawyer said the parents had been sharing a 2-2-3 joint custody schedule, but that Kimberly had concerns about Kasey's mental health. Those concerns stemmed from an incident when Kasey told Kimberly he wanted a divorce; Kimberly alleged that Kasey had removed and hidden her firearm beforehand, and had told the children he was afraid of her and that "mommy was going to jail." The court then questioned Kasey directly. Kasey said he took the firearm because he was scared and it was sitting unsecured, and he acknowledged telling the children he was scared of Kimberly. Based on that questioning, the district court said it had concerns about Kasey's candor, credibility, and mental health. It ordered the children to live only with Kimberly for the time being, with Kasey getting supervised parenting time - one supervised visit per week at the Family Peace Center and one supervised video call per week. The court did not schedule an evidentiary hearing or trial on custody; it set the matter for a settlement conference in July 2025. The court's written order called this "temporary primary physical custody" and said it "expects [Kasey] to obtain a mental health evaluation." Kasey then asked the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus - a court order directing a lower court to perform a legal duty or to correct an arbitrary or capricious use of its discretion. The Court of Appeals agreed with Kasey. It held that, although the district court labeled the order "temporary primary physical custody," it was in reality a de facto sole physical custody order, because Kasey was left with no significant in-person time with his children. The court explained that a sole physical custody order requires more findings and more procedure than the district court provided here. The district court's findings - essentially that Kasey's answers were not credible or suggested a mental health issue, plus his admission that he told the children he was afraid of their mother - were "extremely limited." The court made no findings about whether Kasey was unfit to have the children reside with him even briefly, did not explain how such a restrictive arrangement served the children's best interest, did not consider less restrictive alternatives, and did not identify any specific safety or emergency concerns. The court noted this was especially significant because the parents had been sharing joint physical custody for about three months, and Kimberly had never filed an emergency motion for sole custody. The Court of Appeals also held that the district court should have promptly scheduled a trial to finally resolve custody. Under a Supreme Court Rule, custody matters must generally be resolved within six months of when they are contested, unless the court makes specific findings justifying a delay. Here, more than six months had passed since Kasey's answer, and the court had only set a settlement conference - not a trial. The court rejected Kimberly's argument that this was Kasey's fault because he asked for the July settlement conference, explaining that district courts have their own independent duty to resolve custody within six months. Finally, the court addressed the psychological evaluation. The district court's order was vague about whether an evaluation was actually required. But to the extent the court intended to require one, the Court of Appeals held it must follow the procedural rules governing such examinations. The Court of Appeals directed the district court to revisit the temporary sole physical custody award, to immediately schedule a trial to finally resolve custody (or hold an evidentiary hearing on temporary custody if trial would be significantly delayed), and to comply with the applicable rule if it intends to require a psychological evaluation. The court left the current interim custody order in place pending further proceedings.

Virginia and James were married in 2014, have three children, and divorced in 2015. At first Virginia had primary physical custody (meaning the children lived mostly with her), and James had limited parenting time. Over the following years, both parents filed many motions about custody. Virginia repeatedly raised allegations that James abused the children, but investigations by the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) and, in one instance, the FBI found those allegations unsubstantiated and led to no charges. In July 2022, James asked the court for sole physical custody, arguing that Virginia was harming the children's relationship with him and coaching them to say he abused them. After a one-day hearing in June 2023 — which included the judge privately interviewing two of the children and testimony from the children's therapist and both parents — the district court awarded James what it called "primary physical custody." The court also suspended Virginia's parenting time for three months, then limited her to one supervised visit per month, and required her to undergo a psychological evaluation before any unsupervised time. The Court of Appeals agreed with Virginia on one point: even though the district court labeled its decision "primary physical custody," the practical effect was to give James **sole** physical custody, because Virginia was left with essentially no meaningful in-person time with the children for the foreseeable future. Under Nevada law, before a court can award sole physical custody, it must make specific written findings — separate from its analysis of the children's best interests — either that the other parent is unfit to have the children live with them, or explaining why primary physical custody is not in the children's best interest. The district court did not make those separate findings, so the Court of Appeals reversed that part of the order. On the other issues, the court sided against Virginia. It held she waived (gave up) several arguments by not raising them at the hearing below — including her objections to the judge considering the 30 exhibits attached to James's motion, and her relocation argument. The court found she had a fair hearing and did not show the judge was biased, so it declined to send the case to a different judge. Because Virginia said in her reply brief that she had already completed the psychological evaluation, the court did not address that issue. The case goes back to the district court to enter a new custody order following the guidelines the court set out in a prior case called *Roe v. Roe*.