Nevada family-law case summaries

Kasey and Kimberly Loomis married in 2016 and have two young children. In November 2024, Kimberly filed for divorce, asking for sole legal and primary physical custody, with Kasey getting supervised time with the children. Kasey answered, asking for joint legal and joint physical custody. The court scheduled a case management conference (CMC) - an early hearing to organize a case - for February 6, 2025. The notice for that hearing, which was prepared and signed only by Kimberly's lawyer (not by the court), said the court would enter temporary custody orders at that hearing. At the CMC, the parties were sworn in. Kimberly's lawyer said the parents had been sharing a 2-2-3 joint custody schedule, but that Kimberly had concerns about Kasey's mental health. Those concerns stemmed from an incident when Kasey told Kimberly he wanted a divorce; Kimberly alleged that Kasey had removed and hidden her firearm beforehand, and had told the children he was afraid of her and that "mommy was going to jail." The court then questioned Kasey directly. Kasey said he took the firearm because he was scared and it was sitting unsecured, and he acknowledged telling the children he was scared of Kimberly. Based on that questioning, the district court said it had concerns about Kasey's candor, credibility, and mental health. It ordered the children to live only with Kimberly for the time being, with Kasey getting supervised parenting time - one supervised visit per week at the Family Peace Center and one supervised video call per week. The court did not schedule an evidentiary hearing or trial on custody; it set the matter for a settlement conference in July 2025. The court's written order called this "temporary primary physical custody" and said it "expects [Kasey] to obtain a mental health evaluation." Kasey then asked the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus - a court order directing a lower court to perform a legal duty or to correct an arbitrary or capricious use of its discretion. The Court of Appeals agreed with Kasey. It held that, although the district court labeled the order "temporary primary physical custody," it was in reality a de facto sole physical custody order, because Kasey was left with no significant in-person time with his children. The court explained that a sole physical custody order requires more findings and more procedure than the district court provided here. The district court's findings - essentially that Kasey's answers were not credible or suggested a mental health issue, plus his admission that he told the children he was afraid of their mother - were "extremely limited." The court made no findings about whether Kasey was unfit to have the children reside with him even briefly, did not explain how such a restrictive arrangement served the children's best interest, did not consider less restrictive alternatives, and did not identify any specific safety or emergency concerns. The court noted this was especially significant because the parents had been sharing joint physical custody for about three months, and Kimberly had never filed an emergency motion for sole custody. The Court of Appeals also held that the district court should have promptly scheduled a trial to finally resolve custody. Under a Supreme Court Rule, custody matters must generally be resolved within six months of when they are contested, unless the court makes specific findings justifying a delay. Here, more than six months had passed since Kasey's answer, and the court had only set a settlement conference - not a trial. The court rejected Kimberly's argument that this was Kasey's fault because he asked for the July settlement conference, explaining that district courts have their own independent duty to resolve custody within six months. Finally, the court addressed the psychological evaluation. The district court's order was vague about whether an evaluation was actually required. But to the extent the court intended to require one, the Court of Appeals held it must follow the procedural rules governing such examinations. The Court of Appeals directed the district court to revisit the temporary sole physical custody award, to immediately schedule a trial to finally resolve custody (or hold an evidentiary hearing on temporary custody if trial would be significantly delayed), and to comply with the applicable rule if it intends to require a psychological evaluation. The court left the current interim custody order in place pending further proceedings.