Nevada family-law case summaries

This case is about who should have legal custody of a young girl, N.M., and whether a Nevada court had the power to decide that question. N.M. was born in California in 2007 to appellant, a Mexican citizen. Mother and child moved to Mexico, and in 2008 the mother left N.M. with the maternal grandparents. A Mexican family-services agency (DIF) and the grandmother signed a document indicating the grandparents had custody. By 2009 or 2010, the child's aunt and the aunt's then-partner (the respondent, a U.S. citizen) were raising N.M. In 2011, the mother signed a document appearing to give custody to the aunt and respondent. In 2012, after the aunt's relationship with respondent ended, respondent moved with N.M. to Nevada. Soon after, the mother's half-sister came to respondent's home at night and tried to take N.M. Respondent then asked a Nevada district court to appoint him temporary guardian on an emergency basis. The court did so, and several months later, after a two-day hearing, made him N.M.'s general (permanent) guardian, finding that the mother had abandoned the child. The mother appealed, arguing chiefly that the Nevada court had no authority to decide custody because N.M. had not yet lived in Nevada for six months when respondent first filed his emergency petition. She also argued that there was not enough evidence to overcome the legal preference that biological parents - not third parties - should generally be appointed guardians of their own children. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected both arguments. On jurisdiction, the court explained that NRS 125A.335 lets a Nevada court step in on an emergency basis to protect a child physically present in the state who has been abandoned or who faces mistreatment. Because N.M. was in Nevada and someone had tried to take her from respondent's home at night, the emergency power applied. The court then held that an emergency order can ripen into a final custody decision once Nevada has become the child's "home state" - meaning the child has lived here for six months - so long as no other state or country has an existing custody case or order. By the time the general-guardianship proceeding began, N.M. had lived in Nevada more than six months and there was no competing custody order or case elsewhere. So the Nevada court had power to make a final ruling. On the merits, the court explained that Nevada law presumes parents are preferred as guardians, but that presumption can be overcome by showing the parent is unfit or that other "extraordinary circumstances" exist - including abandonment. Nevada law presumes a parent intended to abandon a child if the parent leaves the child with someone else for six months without supporting or communicating with the child. The district court had evidence that the mother left N.M. with relatives, signed a document apparently giving custody away, and did not provide support or communicate with the child during long stretches. The Supreme Court concluded that this was enough evidence to support the abandonment finding, and so affirmed the appointment of respondent as N.M.'s guardian.