Nevada family-law case summaries

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.