Nevada family-law case summaries

Florentina Santos Garcia and Hugo Angel Dorado Rosales were never married but had two children, one born in Nevada in 2007 and one born in Mexico in 2009. After the couple's relationship ended in 2009, Florentina moved to Mexico and raised both children there from 2009 to 2019. When the children came to Nevada to visit Hugo and other family, Hugo kept them in Nevada beyond the scheduled visit. Hugo then went to court in Nevada seeking sole legal and primary physical custody. Florentina responded by asking the same court to order the children returned to Mexico under the Hague Convention, an international agreement (put into effect in the United States by a federal law) that generally requires a child who has been wrongfully removed from their home country to be sent back. She argued Hugo had wrongfully kept the children in the United States. The district court agreed with Florentina and ordered the children returned to Mexico, finding Hugo had wrongfully retained them. But the court refused to make Hugo pay Florentina's attorney fees and costs, saying it believed both parties' positions were reasonable. Florentina appealed only that fee decision; nobody challenged the return of the children. The federal statute Florentina relied on says a court that orders a child returned "shall" order the losing party to pay the winning party's necessary expenses - including court costs and legal fees - unless the losing party shows such an order would be "clearly inappropriate." In everyday terms, the person who wins a return petition is presumed to get their expenses paid, and it is the losing party's job to prove why that would be unfair. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court did not apply this rule. The lower court simply denied fees at the hearing without addressing the presumption that Florentina was entitled to an award or considering whether Hugo had shown an award would be "clearly inappropriate." Because the district court did not perform this required analysis, the appellate court held it had abused its discretion and sent the case back so the correct standard could be applied. The court also rejected Hugo's argument that Florentina gave up her fee claim by not filing a separate written motion. The appellate court explained the federal statute does not require a separate motion, that the Nevada rule requiring a motion applies only unless a statute provides otherwise, and that asking again would have been pointless because the court had already denied the request orally and in writing. On remand, the district court should allow Florentina to file a statement of her fees and costs, determine the amount necessarily incurred to win her petition, and then decide whether Hugo has shown an award would be clearly inappropriate.