Nevada family-law case summaries

Nick Bryant and Megan Sorget were never married but share one child, S.B., born in 2013. From 2015 to 2021 they shared custody equally under an agreed court order. In December 2020, Sorget asked the court for permission to move to Michigan with S.B. to live with her husband; the court said no. Bryant was then given primary physical custody, and Sorget received summer and holiday time plus the option of ten additional days per month in Las Vegas with advance notice. Sorget moved to Michigan anyway (without S.B.), divorced her husband in February 2024, and moved back to Nevada in March 2024. Once back in Nevada, the parents could not agree on a new schedule. Bryant asked the court to adjust the timeshare while keeping him as the primary custodian; Sorget asked to return to the equal, joint custody schedule the parties had used before she left. After a temporary week-on/week-off schedule and an evidentiary hearing - a trial-like proceeding where witnesses testify under oath - the district court sided with Sorget. It found that her return to Nevada was a "substantial change in circumstances" (the legal trigger required before a court can revisit custody) and that joint physical custody was in S.B.'s best interest, pointing to factors such as the level of conflict between the parents, their ability to cooperate, and the child's developmental and emotional needs. The court also recalculated child support: because Bryant earns about $7,498 per month and Sorget was not working, the standard formula would have set his obligation at $1,080 per month, but the court reduced it to $500 per month after considering Sorget's household income of roughly $10,000 per month (supplied by her ex-husband, with whom she had reconciled) and her responsibility for her other two children. On appeal, the Nevada Court of Appeals upheld everything. It explained that appellate courts do not second-guess a trial judge's weighing of the evidence or decisions about which witnesses to believe; they ask only whether the findings are supported by "substantial evidence" - evidence a reasonable person could accept. The court found the record supported the conclusion that Sorget's return to Nevada changed circumstances in ways affecting S.B.'s welfare (more frequent contact, more availability for daily routines) and that the best-interest findings were adequately supported. On child support, the court held that Sorget's credible testimony - that caring for S.B., her two other children (one with cerebral palsy and other special needs), and her fiancé's five children left her unable to work outside the home - gave the district court good cause not to attribute pretend income to her, and that the district court adequately explained why it lowered Bryant's payment below the guideline amount. Sorget's claim on appeal that she is no longer with her ex-husband, which apparently arose after the hearing, was not considered because it was never raised in the district court, though the court noted she may raise it there as a possible basis to modify support going forward.

Megan Sorget and Tyler James Austin were never married but have two children together, born in 2016 and 2018. In November 2020, a court gave the parents joint legal custody (shared decision-making) and gave Sorget primary physical custody (the children lived mainly with her). Shortly afterward, Sorget asked to move with the children to Michigan, and the court allowed it in May 2021, finding that Michigan had a medical center that could help the younger child (L.A.) with his medical conditions. The move was allowed on the condition that Austin would receive generous parenting time. After the move, the parents had ongoing problems working together. Austin filed court motions saying Sorget was keeping the children from him during his scheduled parenting time and was making medical and school decisions without telling him. Eventually, Austin asked the court to change physical custody, return the children to Las Vegas, and order child support. The court held an evidentiary hearing (a trial-like proceeding where the judge hears testimony and reviews evidence) spread across several days. Austin testified that Sorget had denied him parenting time and was interfering with his role as a father. Sorget testified that she believed she was the better parent, that she was more knowledgeable about the children's needs and L.A.'s medical care, and that Nevada had worse medical care and schools than Michigan. She also could not recall whether she had made the children available for all of Austin's court-ordered parenting time. After the first day of the hearing, the court decided it was in the children's best interest to stay with Austin in Nevada, where they already were for his summer parenting time, and it kept those temporary arrangements in place through the rest of the hearing. During the case, Sorget said she would move back to Las Vegas, and by April 2024 she confirmed she had done so. She filed a motion asking for custody, but she did not file a request to have it heard quickly (an "order shortening time") as the court had directed, so the court did not consider that motion at the final hearing day. In its final written order, the court found that circumstances had substantially changed since the earlier custody decision because Sorget had repeatedly violated orders about Austin's parenting time, denied him parenting time, was dishonest about L.A.'s medical treatment, and interfered with Austin's ability to talk to medical providers and make joint decisions. The court also found that several "best interest" factors listed in Nevada law favored Austin. Based on these findings, the court gave Austin primary physical custody, gave Sorget specified weekend and midweek parenting time during the school year plus a week-on/week-off schedule during summer, and ordered Sorget to pay $1,021.21 per month in child support for the two children. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that it reviews custody decisions for "abuse of discretion" and accepts the trial court's factual findings if they are supported by "substantial evidence." The court found the trial court's findings were supported by the record — including Austin's testimony, messages between the parties, and an exhibit showing that Sorget herself raised the concern about the child's ability to travel while a neurologist had actually approved the travel. The court noted that a custodial parent's substantial interference with the other parent's parenting time counts as a changed circumstance. It said it does not re-weigh evidence or judge witness credibility on appeal. The court also concluded that the summer week-on/week-off schedule did not turn the arrangement into joint custody because Austin remained the primary custodian for most of the year. Finally, the court declined to address Sorget's brief child-support argument and other undeveloped arguments because she did not support them with adequate argument.