Nevada family-law case summaries

Mark and Margaret Summit were divorced, and their divorce decree gave Margaret primary physical custody of their minor children, with Mark receiving parenting time and a child support obligation. Over several years, the couple repeatedly returned to court, largely because Mark asked the court to change the custody arrangement to either primary custody for himself or joint physical custody, and to adjust his child support accordingly. Margaret opposed these requests. Earlier disputes produced multiple appeals; in one, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the trial court because the trial court had denied Mark's request to change custody without first holding an evidentiary hearing (a hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is formally admitted). After that hearing on remand, the trial court denied Mark's request to change custody. The court found that Mark had not shown a "substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child," and had not shown that changing custody was in the children's best interest. The court delayed deciding the child support issues because Mark had not filed an updated financial disclosure form, and it ordered him to file one with supporting documents such as tax returns, bank statements, proof of expenses, and a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan application his business had submitted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mark repeatedly submitted only some of the required documents. Eventually, the trial court ruled on child support, increasing Mark's monthly obligation from $200 to $1,887.98 and finding he owed $33,966 in back child support (arrears). Because the court found Mark's 2020 tax return "wholly incomplete and inadequate" due to missing documents, it based its income calculation largely on his financial disclosure form and on his PPP loan application, in which he had reported that his business received $133,000 in net revenue over a 12-month period. On appeal, Mark argued the trial court ignored or mishandled his evidence on custody. The Court of Appeals explained that many of the materials Mark attached to his written motions were never formally admitted into evidence at the hearing, so the trial court could not treat them as proof. Because Mark did not specifically challenge the trial court's decisions about what evidence to admit or exclude, the appellate court treated that challenge as waived. The court also noted that it does not re-weigh evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal. Mark also claimed the trial judge was biased, but the court found he had not shown the kind of deep-seated bias required to disqualify a judge. On child support, Mark argued the trial court wrongly relied on his PPP loan application and that the figure was outdated because his business had shut down during the pandemic. The Court of Appeals found that Mark had not actually submitted all the documents he was ordered to provide, so the trial court's finding on that point was supported by the evidence. The appellate court acknowledged that the trial court had overlooked some documents Mark filed earlier (such as his 2018 and 2019 tax returns and 16 months of business bank statements), but concluded Mark failed to show that these overlooked documents would have changed the result. Mark also had not provided the appellate court with the hearing transcript, and Nevada appellate courts presume that missing parts of the record support the trial court's decision. Finally, on the attorney fees and costs issue, the Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction (legal authority to decide the issue) because the trial court's order on fees was not final — the court had granted part of Margaret's request but planned further proceedings on the rest. The appellate court therefore dismissed that part of the appeal as premature and affirmed the rest.

Mehmet and Kathleen Kar divorced in Nevada. Their decree gave them joint legal custody, with Kathleen having primary physical custody and Mehmet getting visitation. Mehmet later moved to Turkey, and Kathleen, an Air Force servicemember stationed at Creech Air Force Base, obtained an order giving her sole legal and physical custody. The Air Force then reassigned Kathleen to England, and she took the child with her. Two months after Kathleen and the child arrived in England, Mehmet filed a motion in Nevada to modify custody and child support. Kathleen asked the Nevada court to dismiss the case, arguing that Nevada no longer had jurisdiction because nobody involved still lived there. The district judge agreed, saying that the "second" the mother and child moved to England, the court "lost jurisdiction." The judge dismissed the case. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It explained that the UCCJEA, the law that governs which state (or country) can decide custody disputes, has multiple layers. Yes, Nevada lost what is called "exclusive, continuing jurisdiction" once everyone moved away. But losing exclusive jurisdiction does not mean losing all jurisdiction. The Nevada court still had to ask whether it could exercise jurisdiction under a separate set of rules - the rules that govern when a state can make an "initial" custody determination - because the UCCJEA allows a court that previously decided a custody case to modify its order if those initial-jurisdiction rules are satisfied. Under those rules, Nevada could potentially still hear the case if (a) no other place qualified as the child's "home state" (a place where the child lived for at least six consecutive months), (b) the child and at least one parent still had a "significant connection" with Nevada beyond mere presence, and (c) substantial evidence about the child's well-being remained available in Nevada. At the time Mehmet filed his motion, the child had only been in England for two months, so England was not yet the child's home state. The court below never analyzed whether Nevada or England had a "significant connection" with the child or where the substantial evidence about the child was located. Those are factual questions, and the Supreme Court ruled that the district court must answer them. The Supreme Court also addressed Kathleen's argument that Nevada was an "inconvenient forum" and that England was a better place to litigate. Even if that were true, the UCCJEA does not allow the court to simply dismiss the case. It must stay (pause) the case and direct the parties to file in the more appropriate forum, so that the family is not left "in limbo" with no court anywhere to decide their dispute. The Supreme Court sent the case back so the district court can perform the full jurisdictional analysis the UCCJEA requires. The opinion did not decide whether Nevada actually has jurisdiction; it decided only that the district court must do the analysis instead of stopping at "everyone left."