Nevada family-law case summaries

Janelle Duran and Jimmie De Armas were never married but share two children, born in 2010 and 2014. In March 2023, Duran filed a court case asking for sole legal and primary physical custody. De Armas responded asking for joint custody and later for primary physical custody. Before the trial, Duran's attorney withdrew from the case (was allowed to stop representing her) on August 1, 2023. Trial was set for August 29. Duran did not do much during that nearly one-month window except file a last-minute request on August 24 to delay the trial, which the court denied the next day. Because Duran had not filed a required pre-trial memorandum, had not submitted proposed exhibits, and had not taken part in the discovery process (the pre-trial exchange of information), the court ruled she could not present documents or exhibits at trial. The court did, however, tell her she could still testify. Duran chose not to testify and instead "rested on her pleadings" (relied only on the documents already filed, presenting no live testimony). At trial, De Armas was the only witness. He testified about Duran withholding the children, not cooperating with him, changing the children's schools without telling him, frequently calling the police on him, and other concerns. The district court then issued a custody decree giving the parents joint legal custody but awarding De Armas primary physical custody, with Duran having weekend parenting time. The court found that several of the legal "best interest" factors favored De Armas. On child support, the court decided Duran was capable of working but was not, and "imputed" income to her — meaning it treated her as if she earned a certain amount ($18.00 per hour, or $3,120 per month) for the purpose of calculating support. Her child support obligation was set at $668 per month. The court also ordered that the modeling earnings of the younger child be placed in a blocked bank account for that child's benefit, because it found Duran had sole access to those earnings. While Duran's appeal was pending, De Armas asked to send the case back to the trial court so it could consider his request to change custody. The appeals court allowed a limited remand. On remand, after an evidentiary hearing where both parents testified, the district court gave De Armas sole legal custody (the right to make major decisions for the children), kept physical custody as it was, and ordered Duran to attend individual therapy — one appointment per month for six months — finding the therapy would help her and, in turn, the children. Duran appealed all of this. The Court of Appeals affirmed every part. The court explained that it reviews custody and support decisions for "abuse of discretion," a deferential standard meaning it will not overturn the trial court unless the decision lacks support in the evidence or is clearly wrong. On the continuance and the exclusion of evidence, the court noted Duran never explained what evidence she would have offered or how it would have changed the result, and she declined the chance to testify. On the child interviews, the court explained that judges have discretion whether to interview children, and Duran did not actually challenge the trial court's reasons. On child support, the court found substantial evidence supported imputing income, and it emphasized that appellate courts do not re-weigh evidence or re-judge witness credibility. On the legal-custody modification, the court found the trial court's findings adequately showed a substantial change in circumstances and that the change served the children's best interest. Importantly, Duran did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, so the court presumed the missing transcript supported the trial court's findings. On the therapy order, the court found the trial court made sufficient findings tied to the children's best interest.

Mark Madarang and Celice Germer have one child together, born in 2018. They never married and, before this case, had no court order setting out who had custody. Madarang moved to New Jersey for work in 2017, visited Las Vegas regularly to spend time with the child, and moved back to Las Vegas in 2020, where he could work remotely and see the child more. By February 2021, the parents were routinely splitting time, with Madarang having the child roughly three days a week. In mid-2021, Germer told Madarang she planned to move to Oregon with the child for better work opportunities. Madarang then filed a petition asking a court to establish custody, seeking joint legal custody and primary physical custody if Germer relocated, and asking the court to stop her from moving before it ruled. Germer filed her own petition seeking sole legal custody and primary physical custody, plus a request for temporary custody to allow the move to Oregon. The two cases were combined. After a hearing in October 2021, the district court granted Germer's request to relocate temporarily, gave Madarang Thanksgiving and winter break, and scheduled a full evidentiary hearing for January 2022. At that hearing, the court heard from both parents, Madarang's girlfriend, and Germer's former work manager. In March 2022, the court issued its final decree: joint legal custody, primary physical custody with Germer (including the move to Oregon), and set parenting time for Madarang on certain holidays and school breaks. The decree said the "receiving parent" pays for the child's transportation for scheduled custodial time, and the parent using any extra parenting time pays those travel costs. Madarang appealed. He argued the court wrongly let Germer move, that the temporary move tainted the final decision, and that the court simply copied the "best interest" factors into its relocation analysis. He also said the court did not make enough findings supporting Germer, pointed to behavior he considered inappropriate, questioned whether a possible promotion actually helped the child, and said Germer sometimes blocked his relationship with the child. He also objected to paying travel costs when he was not the one moving. The Court of Appeals explained that it reviews custody and parenting-time decisions for "abuse of discretion" - meaning it does not second-guess the trial judge unless the judge acted unreasonably or made findings not supported by adequate evidence. The court said Madarang was essentially unhappy with how the trial judge weighed the evidence, but that weighing evidence and judging witness credibility is the trial court's job, not the appellate court's. Because the district court had addressed each issue, considered the statutory best-interest and relocation factors, and based its conclusions on substantial evidence, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion. On travel costs, the court noted there is no law requiring one parent or the other to pay for travel tied to custodial time, so that decision falls within the trial judge's discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree.