Nevada family-law case summaries

This case involves a custody fight over a child identified as A.L., the youngest of three children born to Kimberly Stevens and Jefferson Davis Laney. The couple married in 2006 and divorced under a Nevada decree in 2021. Because California was the children's "home state" under an interstate custody law called the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the Nevada divorce decree said the actual custody arrangement would be worked out in California courts. In November 2021, a California court entered a judgment - based on an agreement the parties made (a "stipulation") - that gave Stevens primary physical custody and required Laney and the children to take part in "reunification therapy," a process meant to rebuild the relationship between the children and their father. The parties agreed this therapy was in the children's best interest, agreed to jointly pick the therapist, and agreed to follow the therapist's plan and schedule. Early attempts at reunification with two therapists failed, and those therapists reported that Stevens interfered with the process. The parties then jointly selected Dr. Donna Wilburn as the reunification therapist. In May 2023, after Nevada took over jurisdiction (California gave it up), the Nevada court began enforcing the existing reunification plan. The court ordered daily 7:00 a.m. video calls between Laney and the children, and specifically ordered that the children "shall have privacy alone with [Laney]" during those calls. Private investigators hired by Laney later observed Stevens positioning herself about sixteen feet from A.L. during a scheduled call, with an older daughter hidden under a picnic table about five feet from A.L. - people apparently not visible to Laney on the call. Investigators observed similar concealment on other dates. The case eventually went to a two-day evidentiary hearing in early 2025 on custody and contempt. By the time that hearing concluded, Dr. Wilburn testified that reunification had been achieved, that it went well after initial obstacles were resolved, and that she found no signs the children had been abused by either parent. As a "mandated reporter" (someone legally required to report suspected abuse), she made no abuse report. She recommended joint physical and joint legal custody of A.L. The district court found Dr. Wilburn and Laney credible and found Stevens's testimony inconsistent, evasive, and self-serving. The court held Stevens in contempt for violating the "privacy alone" order, imposing a 25-day jail sentence that she could avoid ("purge") by paying a $500 fine, complying with court orders, and paying certain attorney fees. On custody, the court found a substantial change in circumstances and, after going through the statutory best-interest factors, found most favored Laney. Even so, the court awarded joint physical and joint legal custody of A.L. (not primary custody to Laney), partly to preserve A.L.'s bond with her sisters and Stevens. On appeal, the court rejected each of Stevens's arguments. It held that "Kayden's Law" - a 2025 Nevada statute limiting court-ordered reunification therapy - did not apply, because the reunification requirement came from the 2021 California judgment, not from a Nevada order, and Nevada was required under the UCCJEA to recognize and enforce that judgment. The court also held that no improper delegation to the therapist occurred, that the contempt finding was proper, and that the custody modification was supported by substantial evidence. As for the fee award, the court dismissed that part of the appeal, explaining it lacked jurisdiction because the final fee order was entered after Stevens filed her notice of appeal and she never filed a separate appeal from that order. Because the judgment was affirmed and no remand was ordered, Stevens's request to reassign the case to a different judge was moot.

Denise and Joel Pool married in October 2007, had one son (referred to as L.P.), and divorced in 2019. At divorce they agreed to share joint legal and physical custody of their son. In June 2020, Denise experienced a mental health breakdown and self-harmed in front of Joel and their son. After that episode, Joel received primary physical custody and sole legal custody, while Denise was allowed supervised parenting time plus phone and FaceTime calls. Joel also filed a motion in June 2020 asking for primary physical custody. Later that year, after losing his food-service job during the COVID-19 pandemic, Joel sought permission to move to Ohio with the child. The court denied that relocation request, but Joel and the child moved to Ohio anyway in December 2020. In March 2021, the court held a hearing on Joel's still-pending motion. A court-appointed psychologist, Dr. Holland, testified that Denise's parenting judgment was concerning and that she was an "emotional, parenting risk" to the child, but also that Denise was not a physical risk. Denise testified she intended to move to Ohio if Joel kept custody and stayed there. In a June 2021 order, the court kept joint legal custody but gave Joel sole legal authority over the child's medical and mental-health needs, let Joel keep primary physical custody, and allowed him and the child to remain in Ohio, with Denise having supervised parenting time in Ohio. Denise later decided not to move to Ohio because of family obligations in Las Vegas, and she filed a series of motions to change the custody arrangement. A February 2022 motion was denied after a May 2022 hearing. In September 2022, she filed another motion, this time seeking more parenting time and different conditions for it (not primary or joint physical custody), though the court treated it as a motion to modify custody. She supported this motion with a letter from Dr. Holland, written after the earlier order, saying that Denise—contrary to Dr. Holland's earlier suspicion—had regularly attended therapy, and recommending that the court consult Denise's treating psychologist. Denise also included a letter from her treating psychologist stating that Denise had made "great strides in treatment," was "emotionally stable," and that the psychologist had no concerns about her decision-making or emotional regulation. The district court denied the September 2022 motion without holding a hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed. It explained that a district court can deny a custody-modification motion without a hearing only if the person requesting the change fails to show "adequate cause" for a hearing—meaning a preliminary showing (a "prima facie case") that a change might be warranted. The court found that Denise's new evidence—the two letters and her allegations that Joel had been interfering with her communication and contact with their son since the last order—was new, not simply repeating old information, and could point to a meaningful change in circumstances affecting the child. Because of this, the appeals court held that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing and should have provided an adequate explanation for its decision. The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings.