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.

Zachary and Sarah Barton divorced in 2021 and have three minor children. Under their stipulated divorce decree, the parents shared joint legal custody, but Sarah had primary physical custody, with Zachary having parenting time each weekend from Friday evening to Sunday evening. In January 2022, Zachary asked the court to give him primary physical custody or, alternatively, joint physical custody, and asked the court to interview the children. He alleged, among other things, that Sarah's new boyfriend was abusive to the children. Sarah opposed and filed her own request for sole physical custody. The court opened discovery and scheduled a calendar call (a scheduling and readiness hearing) for December 5, 2022, and a non-jury trial for December 19, 2022. Zachary did not file a required pretrial memorandum and did not appear at the December 5 calendar call. After waiting about 15 minutes, the court heard testimony from Sarah about the abuse allegations and then entered a default judgment - a judgment entered against a party who fails to appear or respond - giving Sarah sole physical custody. About a week later, Zachary asked the court to reconsider or set aside that ruling. He argued that default judgments should not be used in child custody cases because they do not consider what is best for the children, and that his failure to appear was not intentional but resulted from a misunderstanding about the hearing's start time. According to Zachary, a court-provided videoconference link listed the hearing as starting at 4:15 p.m. (UTC), even though the court's orders said the calendar call began at 8:15 a.m., which caused him to try to attend at the wrong time. The district court denied both sides' requests without oral argument, finding that Zachary had not shown the prior order was clearly wrong under the reconsideration standard or that he qualified for relief from the judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed. It explained that Nevada law does not allow child custody to be decided by default. Child custody must be decided based on the best interest of the children, not simply because a parent failed to show up. Because the district court's order relied on Zachary's failure to appear and the court's power to sanction that failure - rather than on an analysis of the children's best interest - the appellate court concluded the district court abused its discretion. It reversed both the custody order and the order denying post-judgment relief, and sent the case back for further proceedings, including, if necessary, an evidentiary hearing on custody.

This case is about when a Nevada family court must hold a full hearing before deciding whether to change which parent has primary physical custody of a child. Caleb Haskins and Lisa Myers divorced in 2012 and have one child, S.H. (now 12). Caleb has primary physical custody and lives in Oregon; Lisa lives in Nevada and has the child during school breaks. In 2020, Lisa did not return S.H. to Caleb after summer break, saying the child had a panic attack at the airport and refused to fly. Caleb asked the court to enforce the custody order; Lisa filed a countermotion asking the court to give her primary physical custody, alleging that Caleb and his current wife were neglecting and verbally abusing the child, denying her parenting time, making the child sleep on a foam mattress in a non-bedroom in an overcrowded house, failing to address dental problems, and assigning the child excessive caregiving duties for other children in the home. The district court ordered Caleb to return the child and allowed both sides 90 days to gather information. After receiving documents and statements from both parents, the district court denied Lisa's motion to change custody without holding an evidentiary hearing (a hearing where witnesses testify and the judge weighs evidence). The judge said it was a "close call" but concluded Lisa had not shown enough to justify a hearing, in part because Caleb had submitted an Oregon Child Protective Services report that did not substantiate similar claims. The Court of Appeals reversed. Drawing on a 1993 Nevada Supreme Court decision, Rooney v. Rooney, the court explained that a parent seeking to modify custody is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if she presents a "prima facie case" - meaning, on the face of her allegations, enough specific facts that, if true, would justify changing custody. The big question the court answered for the first time is: what materials may a judge look at when deciding whether the moving parent has cleared that initial bar? The court's answer has two parts. As a general rule, the judge should look only at the moving parent's properly sworn statements - verified pleadings, affidavits, or declarations - and accept those specific factual allegations as true. The judge should not weigh the other parent's competing evidence or judge anyone's credibility at this stage; that is what the evidentiary hearing itself is for. The narrow exception: if the non-moving parent's evidence "conclusively establishes" that the moving parent's allegations are false, the judge may consider it. Applying that framework, the court held that the district judge made a mistake by weighing Caleb's CPS report and other documents against Lisa's sworn allegations. A CPS report that did not substantiate similar claims does not "conclusively" prove Lisa's allegations are false - evaluating such a report requires credibility findings that belong at a hearing. And even setting the CPS report aside, Lisa's specific allegations (about domestic violence in the home, neglected dental care, deprived parenting time, falling math grades, and the child's living conditions and wishes) tied to Nevada's best-interest factors were enough to require a hearing. The court also held that when a judge denies a custody-modification motion without a hearing, the order must include specific findings and an adequate explanation, not just a conclusory recitation of the legal standard - both to allow appellate review and to help the parents (often self-represented) understand why their motion failed. The case goes back to the district court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing, though the court emphasized that the form and scope of that hearing remain within the trial judge's broad discretion.

Brian Lee Whittle and Raven Morris are not married but have one child together. In 2019, Whittle filed a complaint asking to be listed as the child's father on the birth certificate and requesting joint legal and physical custody. Legal custody generally refers to decision-making authority over a child, while physical custody refers to where the child lives and who cares for the child day-to-day. The district court held an evidentiary hearing (a court proceeding where witnesses testify and evidence is presented) on February 18, 2021. Afterward, it issued a 33-page order. That order directed Whittle to change the child's last name to Morris-Whittle, gave both parents joint legal custody, and gave Morris primary physical custody. The court went through each of the factors Nevada law lists for deciding what is in a child's best interest and described the witness testimony in detail. Whittle appealed, arguing mainly that the district court made inaccurate factual statements in its custody order and that it wrongly gave Morris primary physical custody based on those inaccurate findings, which he said relied on hearsay (out-of-court statements offered as evidence). He also filed a document called "supplemental exhibits" after the hearing to try to challenge some of the court's findings. The Court of Appeals declined to consider the "supplemental exhibits" because that document had not been properly presented to the district court before the hearing, and Whittle had not asked the district court for any relief based on it. Courts generally will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. The bigger problem for Whittle's appeal was the record. When someone appeals, they are responsible for giving the appellate court the documents it needs to review what happened below - including transcripts of hearings. Whittle did not provide a transcript of the February 18, 2021 evidentiary hearing. He had requested transcripts of a different, earlier hearing (a temporary custody hearing held on October 3, 2019), but never actually delivered those transcripts to the court or took steps to compel their preparation. Without the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the court explained, it could not fully evaluate his claims that the hearing was unfair or that the district court made improper evidentiary rulings. When necessary parts of the record are missing, the appellate court presumes the missing material supports the district court's decision. Looking at what it did have - the 33-page order with specific findings on the best-interest factors - the Court of Appeals concluded the record supported the district court's decision to award Morris primary physical custody, and it affirmed.