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.