Nevada family-law case summaries

H.B. is a minor who lost his father and, after a period of homelessness with his mother, began living with his uncle, Marques. Marques asked the family court to make him H.B.'s legal guardian. Marques disclosed up front that he had a felony conviction (for attempted murder, in 2008) and was on parole. H.B.'s paternal grandmother appeared at the hearing supporting Marques, and Marques said H.B.'s mother also supported the arrangement by text message. The district court denied the petition with prejudice for two reasons. First, the judge concluded that Marques's felony conviction automatically disqualified him from being a guardian. Second, the judge found that Marques had not properly served notice of his petition on H.B.'s mother and other close relatives, as Nevada's guardianship statutes require. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with H.B. and Marques on the first point. Reading the statute that lists the things a court must consider in deciding whether someone is fit to serve as guardian, the court held that a felony conviction is one factor the judge must weigh - but it is not an automatic bar. The Legislature did not write an automatic disqualification into the statute, and the court will not add one. Other factors the law requires the judge to consider include the child's preference, the relationship between the proposed guardian and the child, and, ultimately, what is in the child's best interest. Because the district court treated the felony as dispositive and never reached those other factors, that part of its analysis was wrong. On the second point, however, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court. Marques did not serve H.B.'s mother or other close relatives by mail, in person, or by publication, and he did not file the affidavit needed to authorize service by publication. The statute lets a judge excuse normal service in limited circumstances, but Marques did not meet those criteria either. The Supreme Court held that the district court was within its discretion to refuse to overlook the service failures. Because the service problem alone supports the denial, the Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Marques's guardianship petition. But it also instructed the district court to remove the words "with prejudice" from its order, because a denial for failure to serve is not a ruling on the merits. The practical effect is that Marques may file a new petition. If he does, the family court will have to evaluate his suitability using all the relevant statutory factors - not just his criminal record - and then, if it finds him suitable, decide whether the guardianship would be in H.B.'s best interest.

This case involves a grandmother, Donna Gilmore, who asked a family court to make her the legal guardian of her three-year-old granddaughter. A guardianship is a legal arrangement in which a court gives one person the authority and responsibility to care for another person who cannot fully care for themselves - here, a young child. Gilmore filed her petition in May 2023. She claimed the child's mother, Monica Fears, could not properly care for the child because Fears was often homeless, lacked steady work and a vehicle, and had a substance abuse problem. She also noted that the child's father was in jail and could not care for the child. Gilmore said the child had been living with her since May 2022, and she asked the court for temporary guardianship until the case was decided. The court granted the temporary guardianship while it looked into the situation. The court later held an evidentiary hearing - a hearing where witnesses testify and evidence is presented so the judge can make findings of fact. Both women testified. Gilmore said she often babysat the child while Fears worked and disagreed with Fears' choices about who else babysat the child. Fears testified that the child had not moved in with Gilmore; instead, Gilmore had simply been the babysitter while Fears worked night shifts. Fears said she had a full-time job as a restaurant server, also worked part-time as a tattoo artist, had a residence, took the child to medical care when needed, and had a plan for childcare through a housemate. Fears denied having a substance abuse problem. She also explained that she had fainted at work in May 2023 (later diagnosed as a syncope, a temporary loss of consciousness) and was hospitalized, after which Gilmore filed for guardianship and kept the child from her. Under Nevada law, the person asking to become a guardian must prove that the guardianship is necessary by "clear and convincing evidence," which is a demanding standard of proof. The district court found Gilmore did not meet that standard. The court found there was no evidence that Fears could not provide the child's basic needs, no evidence Fears had a drug or alcohol problem, and no evidence of crimes or domestic violence. The court also found that Gilmore had not proven the child was out of Fears' care for the six months before the petition was filed, so a legal presumption that a parent is unsuitable (which can apply when a child has been out of a parent's care for that long) did not apply. Because Gilmore did not prove Fears was unsuitable or that a guardianship was necessary, the court denied the petition and directed that the child be returned to Fears. On appeal, Gilmore argued the court got the facts wrong and that it should have found Fears unfit and found that the child had lived with her since May 2022. The Court of Appeals explained that it generally does not re-weigh evidence or second-guess the trial judge's decisions about which witnesses to believe. It concluded that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence. Gilmore also argued the judge was biased - that the judge asked demeaning questions, used a condescending tone, and had made up her mind before hearing all the evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected this claim, explaining that a judge's rulings and conduct during a case generally do not show disqualifying bias unless they stem from something learned outside the courtroom or reveal deep-seated hostility that would make a fair decision impossible. The court found the record showed the judge listened to the testimony and considered the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

This case concerns a baby boy, D.M.F., who was born exposed to opiates and amphetamines. His parents admitted to methamphetamine use during pregnancy, so they agreed that the paternal grandmother, Yalonda, would care for the twins (D.M.F. and his brother A.F.) as a temporary guardian while they sought drug treatment. CPS investigated, allowed the babies to go home with Yalonda, and approved her as caregiver. About three months later, A.F. died from positional asphyxia after the parents fell asleep with him on a bed. Police and CPS investigated and found no abuse or neglect; the death was ruled a tragic accident. CPS did, however, find that the parents had relapsed on methamphetamine. Yalonda then promised to seek a formal court guardianship over the surviving twin, D.M.F., and CPS once again approved her as caregiver. About a month after A.F.'s death, Yalonda asked the district court to be appointed D.M.F.'s legal guardian. The court granted that petition without objection. Six months later, the district court received an ex parte communication (a behind-the-scenes message) from another judge who had learned of A.F.'s death from CPS records in a separate case. The court appointed an investigator and held a hearing about whether Yalonda had misrepresented things in her petition by not telling the court about A.F.'s death. After the hearing, the court issued an order removing Yalonda as guardian and terminating the guardianship altogether, and referred the matter to CPS. D.M.F., through counsel, appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court held that a district court does have power, on its own initiative, to remove a guardian and end a guardianship - it does not need someone to file a formal petition first. But the court must follow constitutional and statutory rules. The Supreme Court ruled the district court violated D.M.F.'s due process rights. Due process means a person must get fair notice and a real chance to be heard before the government takes away an important interest. Here, none of the court's orders clearly told D.M.F., Yalonda, or the parents that the court was considering the major step of removing the guardian and ending the guardianship. The investigator's report contained no recommendations, the hearing took no sworn testimony, and the participants were never clearly told what was on the table. The Supreme Court also held the district court abused its discretion. To remove a guardian, the court must find one of the conditions listed in NRS 159A.185(1) and then conduct a "best interests of the child" analysis using the factors in NRS 159A.186(2). To terminate a guardianship, the court must make specific findings under NSRG 10(A) about the child's health, whether a guardianship is still needed, less restrictive alternatives, and best interests. The district court did none of these things. It also relied on factual mistakes - for example, finding A.F. died "only days" before the petition was filed when in reality it was a month before, and finding A.F. died "within a few days" of Yalonda becoming temporary guardian when she had cared for the twins for three months without incident. On the CPS issue, the Supreme Court held the district court did not exceed its authority. Although the district court expressed opinions about what CPS should do, the actual order simply referred the matter to CPS for "action as they deem fit," and that was permissible. The Supreme Court reversed and ordered the lower court to reinstate Yalonda as guardian (if she is willing and able). If the district court still wants to consider removal or termination, it must give clear notice, hold a full hearing, and make the findings the statutes require.