Nevada family-law case summaries

Timothy and Samantha Sheets share the same last name but were never married. They are the parents of a daughter, P.S., born in September 2022. Their relationship ended about a year after the child's birth, though Samantha continued living with P.S. in a house Timothy rented. The couple briefly reconciled in early 2024 and discussed moving away from Las Vegas, possibly to Montana, where Samantha had friends and family. In May 2024, after returning from a trip to Montana, the two had an altercation that led Samantha to call law enforcement. Timothy then filed a custody complaint seeking joint legal custody and primary physical custody, claiming Samantha had "abducted" the child. Samantha responded with her own request, asking for primary physical custody so she could relocate with P.S. to Billings, Montana. She gave several reasons: her extended family lived there, she would have free childcare, she had received a better job offer, and the area had cleaner air and water and a more rural lifestyle. Timothy opposed the move, arguing it would damage his relationship with the child and her relationship with her three half-siblings (his children from prior relationships, who lived in Las Vegas), and that Samantha was acting in bad faith to limit his contact and gain advantages in court. The district court first issued a temporary order giving Samantha primary physical custody, with arrangements built around Timothy's work schedule, which required him to work out of state—including in North Dakota—for two weeks each month. After a full evidentiary hearing with numerous witnesses, the court issued a detailed written order granting Samantha primary physical custody and permission to relocate to Billings. It awarded Timothy one week of parenting time per month, with a default schedule that the parties could adjust by mutual agreement to fit Timothy's work schedule. Timothy appealed. The Court of Appeals explained that a trial court has broad discretion in custody matters, and an appeals court will not disturb those decisions unless there was a clear abuse of discretion—meaning the decision was not supported by substantial evidence or was clearly erroneous. The appeals court emphasized that it does not re-weigh the evidence or re-judge the credibility of witnesses; that is the trial judge's job because the judge actually saw and heard the witnesses. Applying that standard, the court found that substantial evidence supported the district court's conclusion that Samantha had a "sensible, good faith reason for the move." Samantha and her prospective employer, Dr. Kayla Erickson, both testified about the legitimacy of the job offer, and Samantha testified about wanting to live near family, obtain free childcare and housing from her mother, and pursue better career opportunities. The court also reviewed the relocation factors from a Nevada Supreme Court case called Schwartz and the statutory "best interest of the child" factors, concluding that the trial court's findings—including that Samantha was more likely to support the child's relationship with her father and better suited to meet the child's needs—were supported by the evidence. While the court acknowledged that the child's relationship with her half-siblings favored Timothy, the trial court found that factor was "mitigated" by uncertainty over whether one half-sibling's mother (Jodi) would herself relocate closer to Montana. On the parenting time schedule, the appeals court noted that Timothy himself had not presented evidence clarifying how his work schedule was set or how far in advance he knew it, and he offered no concrete alternative schedule the trial court could have adopted. Because the order allowed the parties to adjust the default schedule by mutual agreement, the court found the schedule was supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order in full.

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.