Nevada family-law case summaries

This case is about whether Nevada's child support enforcement agency followed the required procedures before enforcing a California child support order against a Nevada resident. In 2013, a California court entered an order naming "Jonathan Jace Roosevelt Smith" as the father of a minor child and requiring him to pay $238 per month in child support. In 2017, the Nevada Division of Welfare and Supportive Services filed a document in Nevada that combined a "notice and finding of financial responsibility" with a notice registering the California order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) - a law governing how one state enforces another state's support orders. Documents attached to the filing indicated Smith had not made payments and owed approximately $12,376 in arrears. Smith did not respond to the 2017 notice, but in 2021, after hiring a lawyer, he moved to void enforcement of the order. He alleged he was never served with notice of the California proceedings, the California order, or the 2017 Nevada notice, and that he only learned of the Nevada action when the agency intercepted $19,811.12 out of a $30,000 civil settlement paid to him by the Bureau of Prisons through the federal Treasury Offset Program. He also contended the California order was intended for a different person, as his name is "Jonathan Lee Smith," though the Court of Appeals noted he failed to present any evidence to support these assertions in the district court. The district court denied Smith's motion, reasoning that because the agency had previously notified Smith that his arrears were referred for federal collection, no additional notice was required before offsetting federal payments. But neither the district court nor the agency addressed Smith's argument that he was never served with the 2017 notice. On appeal, the agency admitted in its answering brief that it did not complete service of the Nevada notice on Smith in the manner required by statute, due to his incarceration. The Nevada Court of Appeals concluded the district court abused its discretion by failing to address Smith's non-service arguments. Nevada law requires that a notice and finding of financial responsibility be served on the parent, and that when an out-of-state support order is registered, the nonregistering party must be notified - requirements that protect a person's ability to contest the registration within a short window. Because Smith was never served, the district court effectively confirmed the amount of support and arrears he owed without giving him those protections. The court also concluded that the district court's finding that Smith received notice of the federal offset was not supported by evidence, because the only support for it was the oral argument of the agency's lawyer, and arguments of counsel are not evidence. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order and remanded, directing the district court to strike the 2017 notice. It clarified that this does not prevent continued enforcement of the California order by lawful means or a new registration proceeding, but any future attempt to judicially enforce the order in Nevada must comply with the registration and service requirements of NRS Chapter 130.