Nevada family-law case summaries

Giana Curreri and Marcus Mayhall are the parents of a child, G.C.M., born in 2015. The parents were never married. Starting in 2017 they filed competing requests for custody, and the arrangements changed several times over the years, moving between shared joint custody and periods where one parent had primary physical custody. A recurring theme in the case was Curreri's allegations that Mayhall was sexually abusing the child. According to the opinion, Child Protective Services (CPS) and law enforcement investigated these allegations on more than one occasion and concluded they were unsubstantiated. The district court expressed concern that Curreri was subjecting the child to unnecessary physical examinations and forensic interviews through repeated reports. A court-ordered parenting evaluation indicated that Curreri "may suffer from paranoid personality disorder" that affected her ability to co-parent. After an evidentiary hearing in September 2023, the district court gave Mayhall sole legal custody and primary physical custody, gave Curreri weekly supervised parenting time, ordered the child to remain in counseling, and ordered Curreri to seek treatment. In November 2024, Curreri filed the motion at issue in this appeal. She argued that the earlier abuse investigations were inadequate, that the court had ignored evidence proving abuse, and that these amounted to a "material change in circumstances" that would justify changing custody. She also asked the court to take "judicial notice" (an official acknowledgment of certain facts) of items in the record but did not specify which facts. In the alternative, she asked the court to erase all its prior orders under a rule (NRCP 60(b)) that allows courts to undo prior decisions in certain situations, arguing there had been judicial and attorney misconduct dating back to 2017 and that the judge was biased against her. The district court denied everything. It found that Curreri had not pointed to any change in circumstances that happened after the 2023 custody order, so it denied the request to modify custody without holding a full hearing. It denied the judicial-notice request because it was "unsure what Mother wishes for the Court to take judicial notice [of]." And it denied the request to vacate prior orders because it had already reviewed and rejected the same misconduct arguments before. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court and affirmed. It explained that to get a hearing on a custody change, a parent must first make a preliminary showing that circumstances have substantially changed since the last custody decision. Curreri's motion instead re-argued the same abuse allegations that had already been litigated during the 2023 proceedings, so it did not clear that bar. The court also affirmed the refusal to vacate all prior orders, noting Curreri was repeatedly filing motions raising arguments the court had already rejected. It rejected her claim that the judge was biased, saying she did not adequately explain her argument. Finally, it dismissed the parts of her appeal that tried to challenge the 2023 custody order and earlier orders from 2017 to 2019, because those challenges were filed too late.

Giana Curreri and Marcus Mayhall are the parents of a child born in 2015. They were never married. Beginning in 2017, they filed competing requests for custody and eventually agreed to share joint legal and physical custody. Over several years, Curreri repeatedly alleged that Mayhall was sexually abusing their son, prompting investigations by Washoe County Child Protective Services (CPS) and law enforcement. According to the opinion, those investigations concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated. The district court became concerned that Curreri was subjecting the child to unnecessary physical examinations and forensic interviews. A parenting evaluation indicated Curreri may suffer from paranoid personality disorder that affected her ability to co-parent and caused harm to the child. The custody arrangement shifted several times, including periods where Mayhall had temporary primary physical custody and Curreri had parenting time or supervised visitation. In May 2023, Mayhall filed an emergency motion arguing Curreri was coaching the child to make false abuse allegations. Curreri filed a counterpetition again alleging abuse, sex trafficking, and fraud by Mayhall's counsel. After an emergency hearing and later an evidentiary hearing in September 2023, the district court awarded Mayhall sole legal custody and primary physical custody, gave Curreri weekly supervised parenting time, and ordered the child to remain in counseling and Curreri to seek treatment. In November 2024, Curreri filed a new combined ("omnibus") motion asking the court to change custody again, to take judicial notice of facts in the record, and, alternatively, to vacate all prior orders under NRCP 60(b) (a rule that allows a court to set aside earlier orders in certain circumstances). She argued the earlier investigations were inadequate, that the court had ignored evidence proving abuse, and that the judge and Mayhall's attorney had engaged in misconduct dating back to 2017. The court gave her a chance to file an amended motion identifying any change in circumstances occurring after the 2023 order. Her follow-up declaration and exhibits did not identify any such new change; instead they reviewed the case history and made more detailed misconduct allegations. The district court denied the motion to change custody without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding Curreri had not alleged any change in circumstances after the 2023 order. It denied the judicial-notice request because it was unsure what facts Curreri wanted noticed. It denied the NRCP 60(b) request because it had already reviewed and rejected the same misconduct allegations in prior orders. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court. It held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the custody-modification motion without a hearing because Curreri had not pointed to anything that changed after the 2023 order, and her abuse allegations had already been litigated. It affirmed the denial of NRCP 60(b) relief because the same arguments had been raised and rejected before. It rejected her claim that the judge was biased, finding she did not develop a coherent argument. It affirmed the denial of the judicial-notice request because she did not identify the facts on appeal. Finally, it dismissed, as untimely, the part of her appeal that tried to challenge the 2023 custody order and the 2017-2019 orders.

Kory Garver and Crystal Coleman married in Reno in 2017 and had one child together, K.G. In November 2019, police responded to a domestic disturbance at the couple's home: the opinion recounts that Kory grabbed a knife and threatened to puncture Crystal's car tires, intentionally threw a pipe that broke her glass fish tank, and was later charged with battery with the use of a deadly weapon and battery by strangulation after a physical altercation involving Crystal's adult son Tye and Tye's friends. In January 2020, a second incident led to a domestic battery charge against Kory for allegedly striking Tye. Crystal then left Nevada for Oregon with K.G. Kory filed for divorce, asking for sole legal and physical custody. Crystal counterclaimed for sole legal and primary physical custody. After a trial held over Zoom, the district court walked through the "best interest of the child" factors listed in Nevada law (NRS 125C.0035(4)) and found, among other things, that Kory had committed domestic violence against Crystal and Tye. Under Nevada law, a finding of domestic violence creates a presumption - a starting assumption the parent must overcome with evidence - against awarding that parent custody. The court found Kory did not overcome it and awarded Crystal sole legal and sole physical custody. The district court also tried to set up parenting time (visitation) for Kory at trial, but the opinion describes Kory as refusing to cooperate, disparaging the court, and calling its order "dishonorable" and "garbage." The court ordered no contact and scheduled a follow-up hearing specifically to set Kory's parenting time; Kory did not attend and did not respond to the clerk's contact attempts. The final decree denied parenting time but invited Kory to file a motion asking for a schedule. He never did, and instead appealed. The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed on every point. On legal custody, the court held that the presumption favoring joint legal custody is defeated when parents cannot "cooperate, communicate, and compromise to act in the best interest of the child," and that substantial evidence - including both parents' own trial testimony about their intense mutual conflict - supported the award to Crystal. On physical custody, the court reviewed each best-interest factor Kory disputed and found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings, including its domestic-violence findings. Notably, the court explained that the domestic-violence statute's list of qualifying acts is not exhaustive: even though threatening to destroy property is not specifically listed, a "knowing, purposeful or reckless course of conduct intended to harass the other person" counts. On parenting time, the court refused to consider Kory's arguments at all under the "invited error" doctrine - the principle that a party cannot complain on appeal about a problem he himself caused. Because Kory's disruptive behavior at trial, his failure to attend the follow-up hearing set for his benefit, and his failure to ever file a motion for parenting time induced the very ruling he challenged, the court declined to review it.