Nevada family-law case summaries

Amber Johnson-Parker and Clevis Parker married in 2019 and had one child that same year. In 2021, Clevis filed for divorce and asked for joint legal and physical custody. Amber wanted joint legal custody but asked to be the child's primary physical custodian. The parties settled many issues, and the divorce decree adopted their agreement. As part of that agreement, they said they would work toward joint physical custody but temporarily gave Clevis primary physical custody because Amber had a pending criminal matter. The agreement listed conditions Amber would need to meet - such as no new criminal charges, no new child-protective-services matters with substantiated allegations, and no new safety concerns for the child - before joint physical custody could be awarded. They also agreed to joint legal custody. After several incidents involving Amber and the child's school, the court temporarily gave Clevis sole legal custody. Amber later asked the court to give her joint physical custody. Clevis opposed that and asked to move to Texas with the child. Amber underwent a psychological assessment, the parties took part in a custody evaluation, and Clevis asked for attorney fees. At trial, the parties presented evidence about the child's well-being and Amber's mental health. Witnesses testified that Amber had been arrested for driving under the influence and had made abuse allegations against Clevis that were not substantiated. Clevis explained why he believed moving to Texas would benefit the child. The district court denied Amber's request, allowed Clevis to relocate, and set a final custody arrangement. It found that Amber's abuse allegations were false and had caused the child mental trauma, that the custody evaluator found Amber exhibited "paranoid and delusional thinking," and that Amber's actions posed a continuous risk of stress and emotional harm to the child. In contrast, it found Clevis provided a stable and supportive environment. The court found relocation was in the child's best interest and gave Clevis primary physical custody, while giving Amber parenting time. It also gave Clevis primary legal custody, finding Amber interfered with the child's schooling and did not support the child's therapy. Finally, the court found Amber's conduct significantly increased litigation costs and later awarded Clevis $45,000 in attorney fees (out of the more than $117,000 he requested), and directed Amber to pay portions of the assessment and evaluation costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the custody, relocation, and fee decisions for "abuse of discretion" - meaning the appeals court does not decide the case fresh, but only asks whether the trial court's decision was supported by adequate evidence and was reasonable. The court explained that in child custody matters, the only question is what serves the child's best interest. It concluded that although the district court did not specifically cite the statute listing the best-interest factors, the court made extensive findings covering most of those factors and tied them to its decision. The appeals court also noted it is not allowed to re-weigh evidence or second-guess the trial court's credibility findings. The court also addressed Amber's claim that the district court judge was biased. It explained that judges are presumed unbiased and that a party challenging a judge must show real factual grounds for disqualification. Because rulings a judge makes during a case generally do not show improper bias, and Amber had not shown bias from an outside source or "deep-seated favoritism or antagonism," the court found no abuse of discretion in the chief judge's refusal to disqualify the trial judge. The Court of Appeals affirmed every part of the district court's decision. It also denied Amber's emergency motion to stay the current parenting-time schedule.