Nevada family-law case summaries

Raymond Bell and Nichole Robinson were never married but have one child together, R.R.B., born in March 2013. The two have been fighting over legal and physical custody of the child almost continuously since 2015. Since an August 2022 court order, they had shared joint physical custody. This appeal was only about physical custody. In April 2023, Bell asked the court to give him primary physical custody, claiming Robinson was abusing drugs and neglecting the child. He supported his request with a statement from Robinson's ex-boyfriend, Bradley Hunt. Many of Hunt's statements about Robinson's alleged drug use were vague about timing or described events that happened before the August 2022 custody order that was still in effect. Bell did describe a January 2023 incident in which, after a party, Robinson allegedly behaved aggressively, bit Hunt on the arm, and then took his car from a police station and damaged it. Robinson disputed most of these allegations. She acknowledged driving away in Hunt's car but said she did so to escape Hunt, who she claimed was threatening domestic violence, and she said any biting was in self-defense. She also said Bell was surveilling her, including hiring private investigators and placing GPS trackers on her vehicle. The district court decided Bell had presented enough to justify a hearing and held an evidentiary hearing in August 2023. Robinson testified that she smoked marijuana two to three times a week but not in front of the child, and denied the other allegations. Hunt testified and repeated his account, but on cross-examination he admitted he had sent Robinson flowers in February 2023 and tried to reconcile in March 2023, even though his written statement said he stopped communicating with her the night of the January fight. He also admitted he never reported Robinson to Child Protective Services despite being involved with her on and off for ten years and claiming to have serious concerns about her parenting. Bell testified but offered few specific allegations about events after the August 2022 order. He admitted making decisions without Robinson's input and providing incomplete or incorrect contact information on school forms. The district court found that the most serious allegations against Robinson were not proven and that much of Hunt's testimony was not credible. The court concluded Bell had not shown a "substantial change in circumstances" that would justify changing custody. The court also reviewed the child's best-interest factors and found that keeping joint physical custody served R.R.B.'s best interest. The court denied Bell's motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals explained that to change custody a parent must show both a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child and that the change would serve the child's best interest. The court held that the district court's finding — that Bell did not show a substantial change in circumstances — was supported by the evidence. It noted that Bell admitted the private investigator provided no useful information about Robinson's fitness as a parent, and that the domestic-violence factor did not apply because Hunt was not a parent, was not seeking custody, was not living with Robinson, and the child was not present during the altercation. The court also emphasized that it does not second-guess a trial court's decisions about which witnesses to believe, and the district court had found Hunt not credible. Because Bell failed on the first requirement, the appellate court did not need to decide the best-interest question, though it added that Bell had not shown the district court's best-interest findings lacked support. The order was affirmed.

Kory Garver and Crystal Coleman married in Reno in 2017 and had one child together, K.G. In November 2019, police responded to a domestic disturbance at the couple's home: the opinion recounts that Kory grabbed a knife and threatened to puncture Crystal's car tires, intentionally threw a pipe that broke her glass fish tank, and was later charged with battery with the use of a deadly weapon and battery by strangulation after a physical altercation involving Crystal's adult son Tye and Tye's friends. In January 2020, a second incident led to a domestic battery charge against Kory for allegedly striking Tye. Crystal then left Nevada for Oregon with K.G. Kory filed for divorce, asking for sole legal and physical custody. Crystal counterclaimed for sole legal and primary physical custody. After a trial held over Zoom, the district court walked through the "best interest of the child" factors listed in Nevada law (NRS 125C.0035(4)) and found, among other things, that Kory had committed domestic violence against Crystal and Tye. Under Nevada law, a finding of domestic violence creates a presumption - a starting assumption the parent must overcome with evidence - against awarding that parent custody. The court found Kory did not overcome it and awarded Crystal sole legal and sole physical custody. The district court also tried to set up parenting time (visitation) for Kory at trial, but the opinion describes Kory as refusing to cooperate, disparaging the court, and calling its order "dishonorable" and "garbage." The court ordered no contact and scheduled a follow-up hearing specifically to set Kory's parenting time; Kory did not attend and did not respond to the clerk's contact attempts. The final decree denied parenting time but invited Kory to file a motion asking for a schedule. He never did, and instead appealed. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed on every point. On legal custody, the court held that the presumption favoring joint legal custody is defeated when parents cannot "cooperate, communicate, and compromise to act in the best interest of the child," and that substantial evidence - including both parents' own trial testimony about their intense mutual conflict - supported the award to Crystal. On physical custody, the court reviewed each best-interest factor Kory disputed and found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings, including its domestic-violence findings. Notably, the court explained that the domestic-violence statute's list of qualifying acts is not exhaustive: even though threatening to destroy property is not specifically listed, a "knowing, purposeful or reckless course of conduct intended to harass the other person" counts. On parenting time, the court refused to consider Kory's arguments at all under the "invited error" doctrine - the principle that a party cannot complain on appeal about a problem he himself caused. Because Kory's disruptive behavior at trial, his failure to attend the follow-up hearing set for his benefit, and his failure to ever file a motion for parenting time induced the very ruling he challenged, the court declined to review it.

Tara filed for divorce in 2015. At a 2016 settlement conference, the couple agreed to terms for a legal separation while trying to reconcile. Reconciliation failed, and Tara asked the court to enter a divorce decree incorporating the settlement-conference terms. Over Alex's objection, the court entered a divorce decree in February 2017 largely incorporating those terms. Under the decree, Alex had to pay Tara "family support" (combined child support and spousal support) of $2,500 per month or 50 percent of his gross monthly income, whichever was greater, for 15 years. If Tara obtained full-time employment, the support would instead be calculated as 50 percent of the difference between the parties' gross monthly incomes, or $2,500, whichever was greater. In 2019, Alex asked the court to modify the spousal support. He argued he never agreed to those terms as part of a divorce (only a legal separation), that his due process rights were violated because no evidentiary hearing was held before the decree was entered, that the spousal support provision was void, that circumstances had changed, and that Tara should be barred from enforcing the provision because she never obtained full-time employment. Tara opposed and counter-moved to enforce the decree. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted each side partial relief: it found the decree was a final judgment that no one had appealed, found that the decree did not actually require Tara to work full-time but that she was willfully underemployed to maximize her spousal support claim (and imputed $2,000 per month in income to her), calculated Alex's arrears, and modified support going forward to a flat $2,500 per month for the remainder of the 15-year term. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed across the board. First, it explained that when a court adopts a settlement agreement into a divorce decree, the agreement generally "merges" into the decree - meaning the agreement stops existing as a separate contract, and the parties' rights come solely from the decree itself. That happened here, so neither side could treat the settlement terms as an independent contract. Second, because the divorce decree was a final judgment and Alex never appealed it within the deadline, he could not attack its validity years later - including his due process argument and his complaint that the court never explained the rationale for the support award. Third, the court saw no error in refusing to apply "equitable estoppel" (a doctrine preventing a party from enforcing terms they themselves violated) because the decree never actually required Tara to get a full-time job; it only said how support would be calculated if she did. Fourth, on Tara's cross-appeal, the court held that because the agreement merged into the decree, the support award was modifiable upon a change in circumstances - and Alex's income had roughly doubled (from $6,666 to about $12,000 per month), which under Nevada statute triggers review. Finally, the court declined to second-guess the district court's decision to impute income to Tara, noting that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or witness credibility.