Nevada family-law case summaries

Ken Nguyen and Robert Boynes were a same-sex couple who dated from November 2009 to May 2013. During the relationship, they decided to adopt a child together and went to Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada. At the time, Catholic Charities did not allow same-sex couples to adopt jointly, so according to Rob, the plan was for Ken to adopt first and Rob to adopt afterward as a second parent. Both men took part in the entire adoption process - background checks, classes, post-placement visits - and Rob even drafted the "birth mother letter" that helped them be selected. A child was placed with Ken in February 2013, and both men were there to receive the newborn. After the placement, the child spent most nights at Rob's house, Rob took the child to most doctor's visits, supplied most of the baby gear, and was listed as a father on the child's baptism certificate. The child's middle name is Rob's surname. But the men's relationship ended in May 2013. When Rob asked Ken to put him on the birth certificate, Ken refused. Ken finalized his own adoption alone in October 2013 and refused to let Rob complete a second-parent adoption. Rob then sued, asking the court to recognize him as a parent and to give him custody. The district court ruled for Rob, and Ken appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The Court applied a doctrine called "equitable adoption," which allows a court to enforce an adoption agreement when one person promised to adopt, the other relied on that promise, and a child would be harmed if the promise were broken. The Court had recognized this doctrine in a 1987 case (Frye v. Frye) and had declined to extend it in two later cases where the dispute was really about whether someone was the biological parent. Here, the Court said this case was different: neither Ken nor Rob is biologically related to the child, and the question was whether the two men had agreed to adopt together. The Court found substantial evidence that they had agreed, that Rob relied on Ken's promise, and that the child would be harmed by Rob's removal from his life. The Court also rejected Ken's claim that the district court treated him differently because he and Rob were a same-sex couple. The Court said child custody decisions are made case by case, and nothing in the record showed the result turned on the parties' sexual orientation. Finally, the Court affirmed the joint custody order. Ken had argued Rob was a "stalker" who sent harassing emails, which would trigger a presumption against giving custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence. The district court found only a single forwarded email tied to Rob, which it concluded was not enough to show "obsessed stalking behavior." Ken also accused Rob of destroying his computer to hide evidence; the district court found the proof inconclusive. The Supreme Court held substantial evidence supported those findings. Three justices - Justice Stiglich, Chief Justice Cherry, and Justice Hardesty - concurred. They would have reached the same outcome under Nevada's Parentage Act rather than under equitable adoption, relying on the Court's earlier decision in St. Mary v. Damon, which recognized that paternity statutes can apply in same-sex parentage cases.

Geanie and Kevin Bradford were married on December 27, 2008, in a ceremony performed by Bryce Duckworth, a newly elected district court judge. Judge Duckworth had taken his oath of office four days earlier, but under the Nevada Constitution he was not authorized to take the bench until January 5, 2009. In 2011, Geanie filed for divorce and sought custody of the couple's minor child. At the divorce hearing, the district court itself raised a question no one had briefed: did Judge Duckworth actually have authority to perform the wedding? The court concluded he did not - reasoning that being sworn in does not confer authority before the judge's term begins - and, finding no valid marriage, dismissed the divorce complaint as moot. The order stated that custody issues would be handled in a separate companion custody case. Geanie never appealed that dismissal. Instead, a year later, she asked the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition - an extraordinary court order directing a lower court to act or to stop acting - to undo the dismissal. The Supreme Court declined. It observed that the district court "may have been in error" about the marriage, noting that both a statute (NRS 122.090) and the "de facto officer doctrine" provide that a marriage performed by someone without actual authority is still valid if both parties believed in good faith that the person had authority. But being wrong does not make a judgment void. Because the district court had jurisdiction over the divorce complaint, its dismissal order was a valid, final judgment that Geanie could have appealed. And because an appeal would have allowed the Supreme Court to meaningfully review the validity of the marriage, an appeal was an adequate legal remedy - and a writ petition cannot substitute for an appeal that was never filed. The court acknowledged that Geanie's failure to timely appeal or move to set aside the order leaves her without legal recourse to challenge the district court's conclusion, but it declined to entertain the petition.