Nevada family-law case summaries

Jose Zirate and Blanca M. Salazar divorced in April 2022 through a joint petition. Under the divorce decree, Salazar had primary physical custody of their three children, and Zirate had parenting time. A few months later, after remarrying and facing worsening finances - in part, the opinion notes, because Zirate had not paid his child support - Salazar asked the court for permission to move to Kansas with the children to live with her new husband. Zirate opposed the move and asked for primary custody himself. By the time of the evidentiary hearing, Salazar had narrowed her request: she still wanted to take the youngest child (age four) to Kansas, but she dropped her request to relocate with the two older children (roughly 16 and 17), who preferred to stay in Nevada. After hearing testimony from both parents and the two older children, the district court split custody: Zirate received primary physical custody of the two older children, while Salazar kept primary physical custody of the youngest child and was allowed to move to Kansas with him. A key part of the court's reasoning was its finding that Zirate had committed acts of domestic violence against the two older children. Under Nevada law, a finding of domestic violence by clear and convincing evidence creates a rebuttable presumption - a starting assumption the other side can try to overcome - that giving the abusive parent joint or sole physical custody is not in the child's best interest. Zirate appealed only the ruling letting Salazar relocate with the youngest child. The Court of Appeals rejected each of his arguments. First, he complained that Salazar had already moved to Kansas before getting the court's permission; the court explained that Salazar left all three children with Zirate when she moved and did not take the child with her, which Nevada law does not prohibit. Second, he argued the district court leaned too heavily on the domestic violence findings - which the district court had called "a huge factor in this case" - because there was no evidence he abused the youngest child; the appellate court explained that the statute requires courts to consider domestic violence against "the child, a parent of the child or any other person residing with the child," so violence against the youngest child's siblings counted. Third, he claimed Salazar manipulated the older children's testimony about being struck; the court found no evidence of manipulation in the record and declined to second-guess the district court's credibility determinations. Zirate also argued the district court got the school comparison wrong (the child attended a private Nevada school with a 10:1 student-teacher ratio, while Salazar proposed a Kansas public school). The appellate court held that even if there were an error, it did not prejudice Zirate because the district court's emphasis on domestic violence made it "readily apparent that the court would have granted Salazar's motion regardless of which school was better." As to separating the youngest child from his siblings, the district court had expressly considered that issue and concluded that protecting the child from domestic violence outweighed keeping the siblings together, especially given the large age gap and a parenting time schedule that reunites all three children during school breaks. Finally, the appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the district court's finding that Salazar was the parent more likely to allow the child a continuing relationship with the other parent - including testimony that Zirate had stopped paying child support while insisting Salazar's parenting time occur in Nevada, and that he had once prevented an agreed trip to Kansas by removing the child from the state himself. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. In a footnote, the court reminded the district court that when the domestic violence presumption is triggered, it must make findings that the custody or visitation arrangement adequately protects the child and other victims - but the court did not reach the sufficiency of those findings because Zirate did not address them and Salazar did not cross-appeal.