Nevada family-law case summaries

Michael Martinelli and Michelle Lucero Del Real were in a romantic relationship that began in 2013, shortly after Del Real's son was born. Martinelli is not the child's biological father. The relationship ended in 2022 after, according to the opinion, Martinelli committed an act of domestic violence against Del Real in the presence of the child. In 2022, Martinelli filed a petition asking the court to grant him "nonparent visitation" - that is, court-ordered time with a child by someone who is not the child's parent. He claimed he had lived with the child, had a meaningful relationship with the child, acted as a de facto father, and that Del Real had unreasonably refused to let him see the child. Del Real opposed the petition. The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing (a hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is presented) and set deadlines for discovery (the pretrial process of exchanging information). Before the hearing, Martinelli asked the court to stop Del Real from mentioning his arrests and domestic-violence incidents, and asked to reopen discovery to gather more information about the child's schooling and medical issues. Del Real, by then represented by free (pro bono) lawyers, opposed those requests, and separately asked the court to declare Martinelli a "vexatious litigant" - someone who misuses court proceedings to harass another person. The court denied Martinelli's two pretrial motions and held the evidentiary hearing, giving each side 90 minutes. Witnesses included two of the child's teachers, a family friend, and both Martinelli and Del Real. Del Real testified about an incident in which Martinelli slammed a door into her in front of the child (a video of this was shown to the court), about verbal abuse, and about Martinelli being arrested in Arizona for driving under the influence while the child was in the car. She also described the child's chronic medical condition (chronic pancreatitis) requiring frequent hospitalizations. The child's recorded interview indicated the child did not wish to visit Martinelli. The court ruled against Martinelli. Under Nevada law, when a parent has denied visitation, there is a legal presumption that giving visitation to a nonparent is not in the child's best interest, and the person seeking visitation must overcome that presumption with strong proof ("clear and convincing evidence"). The court found Martinelli did not meet that burden, citing the lack of positive emotional ties, his history of abusive behavior and addiction, the conflict in the relationship, and the child's stated preference not to continue a relationship with him. The court also found that Martinelli had filed the case to harass Del Real and had abused the discovery process, declared him a vexatious litigant, and ordered him to pay $5,000 in attorney fees to the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada. After Martinelli filed a motion to set aside the judgment and a motion for a new trial, the court denied both and ordered an additional $500 in attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld every part of the trial court's decision. It found the trial court acted within its discretion on the discovery and evidence rulings, that substantial evidence supported the denial of visitation, that Martinelli had in fact been given a chance to oppose the vexatious-litigant request (he filed a written opposition), and that he had not shown the judge was biased.

This case involves a baby, A.R., who was removed from her parents in 2022 because of neglect and abuse. The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) initially placed her with her paternal aunt, Mary. Over time, A.R. also began spending weekends with her maternal grandmother, Ericka. Both relatives loved A.R., wanted to adopt her, and were considered fit caregivers. After the parents' rights were terminated by the court, the district court had to decide where A.R. should live permanently. Both the aunt and the grandmother were good options, and the district court found them "equally situated" in most respects. To break the tie, the court considered DFS's recommendation. DFS preferred the aunt's home because A.R. had developed a close, sibling-like bond with her cousin (the aunt's child), and DFS believed keeping that bond intact was best for A.R. The court placed A.R. with the aunt for adoption, while preserving the grandmother's role through a Post Adoptive Contact Agreement giving her alternating weekend visits and two weeks of summer vacation each year. The grandmother asked the Nevada Supreme Court to step in through a writ of mandamus - a court order directing a lower court to perform a duty required by law. She argued the district court placed too much weight on DFS's recommendation, did not make sufficient findings, did not hear enough evidence, and improperly favored a "nuclear family" structure. The Supreme Court rejected those arguments and denied the petition. It explained that, after parental rights are terminated, a different statute (NRS 128.110) governs placement, and that statute gives the agency holding the child's custody discretion in deciding placement. The district court is not bound by the agency's preference, but it must consider it as part of figuring out what is in the child's best interest, which always remains the paramount concern. Here, the district court did exactly that: it acknowledged it could override DFS, but found DFS's reasoning - protecting A.R.'s bond with her cousin - persuasive. The Supreme Court also concluded that the district court's findings were sufficient and that its decision was not based on a generic preference for "traditional" families but on the specific facts of A.R.'s relationships. Some of the grandmother's other arguments were treated as waived because she did not raise them in the district court.

This case involves a grandmother, Donna Gilmore, who asked a family court to make her the legal guardian of her three-year-old granddaughter. A guardianship is a legal arrangement in which a court gives one person the authority and responsibility to care for another person who cannot fully care for themselves - here, a young child. Gilmore filed her petition in May 2023. She claimed the child's mother, Monica Fears, could not properly care for the child because Fears was often homeless, lacked steady work and a vehicle, and had a substance abuse problem. She also noted that the child's father was in jail and could not care for the child. Gilmore said the child had been living with her since May 2022, and she asked the court for temporary guardianship until the case was decided. The court granted the temporary guardianship while it looked into the situation. The court later held an evidentiary hearing - a hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is presented so the judge can make findings of fact. Both women testified. Gilmore said she often babysat the child while Fears worked and disagreed with Fears' choices about who else babysat the child. Fears testified that the child had not moved in with Gilmore; instead, Gilmore had simply been the babysitter while Fears worked night shifts. Fears said she had a full-time job as a restaurant server, also worked part-time as a tattoo artist, had a residence, took the child to medical care when needed, and had a plan for childcare through a housemate. Fears denied having a substance abuse problem. She also explained that she had fainted at work in May 2023 (later diagnosed as a syncope, a temporary loss of consciousness) and was hospitalized, after which Gilmore filed for guardianship and kept the child from her. Under Nevada law, the person asking to become a guardian must prove that the guardianship is necessary by "clear and convincing evidence," which is a demanding standard of proof. The district court found Gilmore did not meet that standard. The court found there was no evidence that Fears could not provide the child's basic needs, no evidence Fears had a drug or alcohol problem, and no evidence of crimes or domestic violence. The court also found that Gilmore had not proven the child was out of Fears' care for the six months before the petition was filed, so a legal presumption that a parent is unsuitable (which can apply when a child has been out of a parent's care for that long) did not apply. Because Gilmore did not prove Fears was unsuitable or that a guardianship was necessary, the court denied the petition and directed that the child be returned to Fears. On appeal, Gilmore argued the court got the facts wrong and that it should have found Fears unfit and found that the child had lived with her since May 2022. The Court of Appeals explained that it generally does not re-weigh evidence or second-guess the trial judge's decisions about which witnesses to believe. It concluded that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence. Gilmore also argued the judge was biased - that the judge asked demeaning questions, used a condescending tone, and had made up her mind before hearing all the evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected this claim, explaining that a judge's rulings and conduct during a case generally do not show disqualifying bias unless they stem from something learned outside the courtroom or reveal deep-seated hostility that would make a fair decision impossible. The court found the record showed the judge listened to the testimony and considered the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

This case involves a custody dispute between two parents, Jennifer Crosier and Garrett Crosier, who married in Utah and had three children. After separating in 2017, Jennifer moved to Nevada with the children and Garrett moved to Colorado. Although they divorced in Utah in 2019, the parties agree that no Utah court ever issued a final custody decree. In April 2022, Jennifer filed a complaint in Nevada asking for sole legal and sole physical custody of all three children. In her complaint, Jennifer raised concerns about Garrett's alleged domestic violence, stating that he had a prior child abuse/neglect conviction from Utah and that the children were afraid of him. The two older children were interviewed by the Family Mediation Center (FMC) and described instances of alleged physical abuse by Garrett - one child said he slapped her and caused her to hit her head, and that he kicked the other child with a steel-toed boot; the other child said he picked her up and pulled her by her hair. Both older children said they preferred to stay with Jennifer in Nevada. At a single-day hearing in May 2023, both parents represented themselves without lawyers. The judge told the parties he would "take control of the questioning" to avoid wasting time, and the court itself questioned the parties and witnesses. The court admitted the FMC child interview report into evidence, but it never asked any questions about the abuse allegations in that report or the domestic violence claims from Jennifer's complaint. When Jennifer tried to raise the abuse issue in her closing argument, the court did not allow her to continue, stating she had offered "zero evidence" that Garrett abused the children. At the end of the hearing, the judge said he had to consider "certain factors in evaluating what is in a child's best interest," but he addressed only two of the twelve factors that Nevada law requires. The court decided the parents would share joint legal custody, that Jennifer would have primary physical custody of the two older children, and that Garrett would have primary physical custody of the youngest child in Colorado. The written custody decree that followed did not mention any of the twelve best interest factors and contained no factual findings about the children's best interest. A later post-decree order also failed to address those factors. The Court of Appeals reversed. It explained that when deciding custody, a court's only consideration is the best interest of the child, and the court must consider all twelve factors listed in the statute and put its findings in a written order that ties those findings to the custody decision. Because the decree here contained no such findings, the court found this was an abuse of discretion and reversible error. The court also held that the trial court should have addressed the domestic violence allegations - the FMC report containing those allegations was in evidence, yet the court never determined whether domestic violence occurred. Finally, the court held the trial judge should have analyzed whether moving the youngest child to Colorado was in that child's best interest, using a five-factor test from prior Nevada case law. The case was sent back for a new evidentiary hearing.

This case concerns which state's courts have the authority to decide who should be appointed guardian of a young child, Y.U.G. The child was born in Las Vegas in June 2022 to Daron G. and Sway Dumes. When the child was about ten months old, the parents concluded they could not care for him because they did not have stable housing, so they entrusted him to his paternal aunt, Ladesha G., who lives in Compton, California. In April 2023, Ladesha took the child to live with her in California, while the parents stayed in Las Vegas. About three months later, in July 2023, Ladesha brought the child back to Las Vegas to obtain his birth certificate and social security card. While there, she filed a petition asking a Nevada court to appoint her as the child's guardian, and the parents consented. After filing, she returned to California with the child. At an October hearing, the district court raised a concern: because the child had been living in California after the petition was filed, the judge questioned whether a Nevada court had the power (called subject matter jurisdiction) to hear the case. The court then issued a written decision denying the petition, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because "California is the home state." The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed. It explained that Nevada law lets a Nevada court hear a child custody or guardianship matter if Nevada was the child's "home state" within six months before the case was filed, so long as the child is now outside Nevada but a parent still lives in Nevada. Here, the child had lived in Nevada from birth in June 2022 until moving to California in April 2023 — more than ten months — so Nevada was his home state. The guardianship petition was filed in July 2023, only about three months after the child moved, which is within the six-month window. And even though the child was in California when the petition was filed, both parents still lived in Las Vegas. Because all of those conditions were met, the court held that the Nevada district court did have jurisdiction and should not have denied the petition for lack of it. Because that conclusion resolved the appeal, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court to proceed, and did not address the other issues Y.U.G. raised.

Ahed Said Senjab and Mohamad Abulhakim Alhulaibi are Syrian citizens who married in Saudi Arabia and have one child. In 2018, Alhulaibi came to Las Vegas on an F-1 student visa to attend UNLV. In January 2020, Senjab and the child joined him on F-2 dependent visas. Two months later, Senjab filed for divorce in Clark County, also seeking spousal support, child custody, and child support. Alhulaibi moved to dismiss, arguing the Nevada court had no power to hear the case. Nevada's divorce-jurisdiction statute, NRS 125.020, requires that at least one spouse have been a "resident" of Nevada for at least six weeks before filing. Older Nevada Supreme Court decisions had said "residence" in this statute meant the same thing as "domicile" - a true, permanent home where a person intends to stay. Alhulaibi argued that because their student-related visas required them to maintain a foreign residence, they could not legally form the intent to remain in Nevada, so neither spouse could be domiciled here. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. Reading the statute's words plainly, the court held that "residence" means just that - residence - not domicile. The statute itself uses the two terms separately, treating them as different. A separate Nevada statute, NRS 10.155, defines legal residence as the place where a person has been physically present during the period for which residence is claimed. Because the district court had already found that Senjab and Alhulaibi were physically present in Nevada for at least six weeks before the complaint was filed, the residency requirement was met, and the district court had jurisdiction to hear the divorce. The court sent the case back to the district court to proceed with the divorce action. The court did not decide whether F-2 visa holders can or cannot establish domicile, because that question was no longer necessary to resolve the case. The court also did not address the custody and support issues, since the district court had not ruled on them.

Wesley and Maria Lewis divorced in 2011 and shared joint physical custody of their child. Wesley was ordered to pay child support. In 2013, after Maria asked the court to enforce the support obligation, the district court found Wesley in contempt for not paying, entered a judgment for arrears, and required him to take the child to tutoring classes and pay half of the cost. In 2014, Maria asked the court to modify custody and again to enforce the prior orders. After a hearing where Wesley represented himself, the district court awarded Maria primary physical custody, kept the tutoring requirement in place, and held Wesley in contempt again - this time sentencing him to a total of 80 days in jail for missed support payments and missed tutoring trips. The court stayed (paused) the jail sentence on the condition that Wesley "follow the Orders of the Court." Wesley appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court addressed three main questions. First, was the contempt order "civil" or "criminal"? This matters because the Sixth Amendment right to a court-appointed lawyer applies only to criminal proceedings. Civil contempt is meant to coerce someone into complying (for example, "you sit in jail until you pay"). Criminal contempt is meant to punish someone for past disobedience. The court explained that for a contempt order with a fixed jail term to count as civil, it must contain a "purge clause" - language that lets the contemnor get out of the punishment by complying with the order (for example, paying what is owed). Wesley's order had no purge clause: if his stay were lifted, he had no described path to avoid or shorten jail by paying. The court therefore held the order was criminal in nature and that Wesley's Sixth Amendment rights were violated because he had no lawyer at the contempt proceedings. The contempt order was vacated, and counsel must be appointed on remand if Wesley is found indigent. Second, did the district court properly modify custody? The Supreme Court said no. Nevada law forbids using a custody change to punish a parent for disobeying court orders. The district court's written and oral explanations leaned heavily on Wesley's failure to pay support, pay medical insurance, and pay tutoring costs - in other words, his disobedience. The district court also failed to make specific findings on each of the best-interest-of-the-child factors required by NRS 125.480(4) (2009). For both reasons, the custody modification was reversed, and because the child support modification was based on the custody modification, it was also reversed. Third, did the district court err in continuing the tutoring obligation? The Supreme Court said no. The 2013 order required tutoring until the child tested at or above grade level "as tested by [the tutoring school]." She had not yet met that benchmark in math at the tutoring school, even though she did well on Clark County School District tests. The tutoring obligation was therefore affirmed. The court also rejected Wesley's claim of judicial bias, finding nothing in the record that would cause a reasonable person to doubt the judge's impartiality.