Nevada family-law case summaries

This case is about whether a parent asking a court to change a child custody arrangement was entitled to a full hearing where evidence could be presented, before the court turned him down. Scott and Nancy Kelsey were divorced. Under their divorce decree, they shared joint legal custody of their child (meaning both had a say in major decisions), but Nancy had primary physical custody (the child mainly lived with her), while Scott had parenting time. Scott later asked the court to give him sole legal and physical custody. The court held a hearing but did not take live evidence — this is called a "nonevidentiary hearing." The court then denied Scott's request, deciding that none of his claims justified changing custody or holding a fuller evidentiary hearing. Scott appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed with him. Under Nevada law, a parent who wants an evidentiary hearing on a request to modify custody must show there is "adequate cause" for one by presenting what the law calls a "prima facie case" — essentially, enough of a showing on paper to warrant a fuller look. To do that, the parent must show that the facts in the sworn statements supporting the motion are relevant to the legal grounds for changing custody and that the evidence is not merely repetitive or aimed only at attacking someone's credibility. The Court of Appeals explained that when a court decides whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, it is generally supposed to accept the moving parent's specific allegations as true, rather than weighing whether they seem believable. Here, Scott had alleged, among other things, that Nancy made the child attend school after he tested positive for COVID-19, failed to take the child to a doctor or emergency room when the child had a high fever, and knowingly let the child drive her vehicle without a license or learner's permit on multiple occasions. The district court had rejected these claims for reasons the Court of Appeals found improper. The lower court had said there was "no credible evidence" behind the illness-related claims and pointed to a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation that discussed the driving incident with Nancy and the child. But the Court of Appeals noted that credibility is generally not something a court should weigh at this early stage, because the allegations must be accepted as true. And relying on the CPS report to reject the request denied Scott the chance to challenge the accuracy of that report — something that should happen at an evidentiary hearing. Because Scott's allegations, taken as true, were relevant to whether there had been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare and whether a custody change would be in the child's best interest — and because nothing showed those allegations were merely repetitive or aimed only at attacking credibility — the Court of Appeals held that Scott had established a prima facie case and thus satisfied the "adequate cause" standard. The court concluded the district court had abused its discretion by denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals emphasized that it was not deciding whether Scott should ultimately win. It sent the case back to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing, leaving the form of that hearing to the district court's discretion, and noted that Nancy's objections might still prevail once evidence is taken.