Nevada family-law case summaries

Madison Buchanan and Corey Brewer were never married but had a child together, A.B., born in June 2020 in Las Vegas. After their romantic relationship ended in July 2022, they informally shared joint legal and physical custody of A.B. without a court order. Circumstances changed when Madison's now-husband accepted a job in Reno in June 2024 to be closer to his mother, who had been diagnosed with cancer. Madison then accepted her own job in Reno with an earlier start date, moving up her planned relocation to the end of October 2024. In response, Corey filed an amended complaint seeking joint legal and physical custody. Madison asked the court to set a temporary custody schedule and to allow her to relocate with A.B. to Reno. The parties went through mediation and agreed on some matters — they agreed to share joint legal custody and worked out schedules for holidays, vacations, and school breaks. But they could not agree on physical custody and relocation, so the district court held a trial where both parents testified. The testimony covered how they had shared custody, Corey's past drug use and his recovery efforts, the family support networks in both Las Vegas and Reno, Madison's better-paying Reno job and belief that Reno had better schools, and Madison's pregnancy and the chance for A.B. to spend more time with siblings. The district court decided that both parents were essentially equal when it came to what was best for A.B. Because the parent who wants to move must prove that moving is in the child's best interest, and because the court found the best-interest factors were evenly balanced (a "tie"), Madison did not carry that burden. The court denied her request to move and gave Corey primary physical custody. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the decision under an "abuse of discretion" standard — meaning it would not overturn the district court simply because it might have decided differently, but only if the decision lacked support in the evidence or was clearly wrong. The appeals court explained that because there was no prior permanent custody order in this case, the relocation statute the district court cited did not technically govern, but the district court was permitted to use that framework as a guide. The court found that the district court had properly considered whether Madison had a good reason to move (it found she did), and then weighed the child's best interest using the statutory best-interest factors. Because the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and because the appeals court is not allowed to re-weigh the evidence itself, it affirmed the district court's decision.

Erik Ward and Svetlana Villaflor were never married and have two minor children together. In December 2019, the district court entered a final custody decree giving Villaflor primary physical custody. The court allowed Ward one hour per week of supervised parenting time at a third-party facility called Donna's House, but conditioned continued parenting time on Ward submitting to a psychological evaluation showing the children would be safe in his care. The court also asked Ward to provide the documents supporting that evaluation so the court could review them privately (an "in camera review" - a review conducted by the judge in chambers rather than in open court). Ward asked the court to reconsider, and the court denied that request in March 2020. Ward then filed a motion to set aside the March 2020 order under NRCP 60(b) - a court rule that lets a party ask a court to undo a prior ruling for certain reasons. The district court denied that motion too. Ward appealed, and in an earlier, separate appeal, the Court of Appeals sent the matter back (reversed and remanded), finding the district court had not applied the required legal factors from a case called Yochum v. Davis. On remand, the district court re-examined those factors in detail and again denied Ward's NRCP 60(b) request. That second denial is what Ward challenged in Docket No. 85148-COA. Separately, Ward's supervised parenting time had been terminated after an incident that led to his removal from Donna's House. Ward filed a "Motion for Visitation" asking to restart his parenting time. After briefing and a hearing, the district court denied that request, repeating that it might reconsider if Ward provided a psychological evaluation showing he was not a danger to the children. Ward challenged that denial in Docket No. 84674-COA. On appeal, Ward mostly tried to attack the original 2019 custody decision. The Court of Appeals said it could not consider those arguments because Ward had not filed a timely appeal of the 2019 order - and filing a timely appeal is a basic requirement without which the court has no power to hear the issue. Because Ward did not otherwise challenge how the district court applied the Yochum factors, the court treated those arguments as given up (waived), and found no abuse of discretion in the denial of NRCP 60(b) relief. On the parenting-time issue, the court noted that Ward did not dispute the district court's authority to order a psychological evaluation. Instead, Ward argued it was impossible to comply because several psychiatrists refused to treat him. But the letters he submitted to show this were heavily blacked out (redacted), and he did not provide unredacted versions for the court's private in-chambers review, even though the court had told him he could submit them that way. Under these circumstances, the court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed both orders.