Nevada family-law case summaries

The Ruckles had been serving as court-appointed guardians of their three granddaughters since January 2022, when a district court found that the children had been living with their mother, Sara Q., in squalid conditions and were thriving in the Ruckles' care. Over the next two years, Sara petitioned the court to begin reunification therapy - therapy designed to repair the relationship between a parent and her children - and the court eventually ordered the Ruckles, Sara, and the children to participate with a therapist named Dr. Stephanie Holland. Disagreements arose over the wording of the therapist's consent paperwork, and the therapy was slow to begin. Dr. Holland sent the court two confidential reports under NSRG 5, a rule that allows a guardianship judge to receive certain communications about a guardian's conduct or a protected person's welfare. After receiving the second report, the court issued a July 13, 2024 order expressing "significant concern" about the Ruckles' compliance with their duties, ordered the children to undergo psychoeducational testing, expanded Sara's visitation, and set an NSRG 5 hearing for July 25 to address the issues raised in Dr. Holland's report. One day before that hearing, Sara filed a petition asking the court to remove the Ruckles and terminate the guardianship. The court did not issue the formal "citations" (legal notices) that Nevada statutes require when such a petition is filed, and there is no indication the petition was set for any hearing. At the July 25 hearing, which lasted only seven minutes, the district court announced - without taking evidence, hearing argument, or directing briefing - that it was removing the Ruckles as guardians and terminating the guardianship. When the Ruckles' lawyer tried to speak, the judge said, "I understand you've stood up, but I've made my orders. I am terminating the guardianship today." The court told counsel he could file a motion for reconsideration. A written order followed in October 2024. The Ruckles appealed, arguing that they had a constitutional right to procedural due process - basic fairness, including notice and a chance to be heard - before a court could strip them of guardianship, and that they did not get either. The Court of Appeals agreed. Building on the Nevada Supreme Court's 2023 decision in In re Guardianship of D.M.F., the Court of Appeals expressly held that a custodial relative who serves as a guardian has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the child, and is therefore entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court may, on its own initiative, remove the guardian and terminate the guardianship. The court found the notice given here was inadequate. The July 13 order flagged concerns but did not signal that removal or termination was being considered. Sara's last-minute petition came too late and was not accompanied by the statutorily required citations. And even if notice had been adequate, there was no meaningful opportunity to be heard because the district court issued its ruling at the start of a brief hearing, without briefing, evidence, or argument. Rather than simply reversing, the Court of Appeals vacated the order and sent the case back. Because Dr. Holland's confidential reports were not in the appellate record - and because Sara's petition described serious allegations including alleged emotional, psychological, and physical abuse and educational neglect - the court directed the district court on remand to permit briefing, hold an evidentiary hearing, and make the specific findings required by Nevada statutes and the NSRG before deciding whether removal or termination is warranted. In the meantime, the children will remain in Sara's physical and legal custody pending the district court's decision, although the trial court retains authority to enter temporary or emergency orders if circumstances require. The Court of Appeals also noted that the matter is moot as to the eldest child, A.L.R.-Q., because she has turned 18.

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.