Nevada family-law case summaries

Khalifa and Madeline Burden were never married but share one child. Over many years, the parents fought repeatedly in court over custody and how to raise the child. Custody arrangements changed several times: joint custody at first, then primary physical custody to Khalifa in 2015, then joint physical custody again in 2019, and continued joint custody with a week-on/week-off schedule after a 2020 order that also chose Burden's preferred elementary school over Khalifa's preference for homeschooling. Later, Burden asked the court to change custody again. She alleged that circumstances had changed in a way that hurt the child - specifically, that Khalifa had emotionally abused the child by telling her to lie at school and by telling her that it was her fault she had been sexually abused in the past. The court held an evidentiary hearing (a hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is presented) at which both parents testified. Burden described an incident on December 13, 2022, in which the child was very upset after being with Khalifa. The court allowed Burden to repeat what the child said that day, treating those statements as "excited utterances" - an exception to the usual rule against repeating someone else's out-of-court statements, applied when a person is speaking under the stress of a startling event. According to that testimony, Khalifa had wanted the child to lie to school officials, became angry when she would not, made her stay outside in the cold, told her he did not want her anymore, said she had "demons inside her," and blamed her for being sexually abused. Khalifa denied making those statements and testified that he wanted the child homeschooled or in a program with remote learning, and that he did not want the child in therapy because it was against his religious beliefs. The district court found that circumstances had substantially changed - including Khalifa's emotional abuse of the child - and that the child's best interest favored giving Burden primary physical custody. The court kept joint legal custody (shared authority over major decisions) but gave Burden the final say on schooling and mental health treatment. It also decided the child should stay at her current middle school rather than be homeschooled, and it limited Khalifa's parenting time to short, gradually increasing visits, with the possibility of more time if he behaved appropriately. On appeal, Khalifa argued the court wrongly modified custody, ignored the child's emotional suffering from reduced time with him, failed to properly weigh the child's past sexual abuse, wrongly gave Burden authority over mental health decisions, wrongly rejected homeschooling, and should have disqualified the judge for bias. The Court of Appeals rejected each argument, holding that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence and that an appeals court does not re-weigh evidence or re-judge witness credibility. It affirmed the district court's order in full.

This case is about a long-running custody dispute between two parents of two children. Petriuc and Matas married in November 2012 and had two children. In August 2014, Matas filed for divorce and custody, and the following month the district court entered a divorce decree and custody order by default, finding that Petriuc had been served but did not file an answer. (Petriuc later disputed that he was served.) That initial order gave Matas sole legal custody and primary physical custody, with limited parenting time for Petriuc. After the decree, Matas moved with the children to Arizona without Petriuc's knowledge or court permission, living with her parents. In 2018, again without Petriuc's knowledge, she started guardianship proceedings in Arizona, and her parents became the children's legal guardians. Matas did not contact Petriuc until June 2019, when she told him she and the children were in Arizona. Petriuc visited three times between September and October 2019, after which Matas cut off communication and refused further parenting time. In December 2020, Petriuc filed his first motion to modify custody, pointing to Matas's alleged "instability," her interference with his visits, and her relocation of the children to Arizona without his consent. In April 2022, the district court granted that motion, finding a substantial change in circumstances. The court awarded joint legal custody but let Matas keep primary physical custody, concluding it was not in the children's best interests to uproot them from Arizona to move to Las Vegas. The court significantly expanded Petriuc's parenting time (including summers) and said that if Petriuc later presented additional evidence about Matas's fitness or the children's best interests, the court was "inclined to consider a further modification to joint physical custody." In July 2023, Petriuc filed a second motion to modify custody, arguing the children should relocate to Las Vegas. He attached documents proving the Arizona guardianship existed and said he had successfully reunified with the children. Matas opposed and filed a countermotion asking for four weeks of parenting time over the children's summer breaks. Petriuc did not oppose her countermotion. About a month before the hearing, Matas and her parents agreed to dissolve the Arizona guardianship, restoring her parental rights. After a March 2024 evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Petriuc's motion and granted Matas's countermotion. The court found Petriuc had not shown a substantial change in circumstances since the April 2022 order. It treated the guardianship issue as moot because the guardianship had been dissolved, and it noted that Petriuc could have obtained his new guardianship documents earlier with reasonable diligence. The court found the children were "thriving socially, academically, and developmentally in Arizona" and that uprooting them was not in their best interest. It also granted Matas four weeks of summer parenting time. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court's central reason was that Petriuc did not make developed ("cogent") legal arguments explaining how the district court abused its discretion. He did not challenge key findings—such as the mootness of the guardianship issue or the finding that his reunification with the children was not a substantial change—and he did not engage with the court's best-interest analysis. Because these arguments were not properly raised or developed, the appellate court declined to consider them and left the district court's rulings in place.

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.