Nevada family-law case summaries

Allison Holmes and Felipe Serrano were never married but have one child together, born in 2019. In 2021, Holmes went to court asking for various things, including primary physical custody (meaning the child would live mainly with her). Serrano responded by asking for joint physical custody (meaning both parents would share custody more equally). The court sent them to mediation, where they worked out and agreed on a parenting plan setting a weekly schedule. Under that schedule, Serrano would have the child from Saturday evening to Monday morning, and again from Wednesday (pickup from daycare) to Thursday morning. Holmes would have the child the rest of the week. Even though they agreed on the schedule itself, they could not agree on what to call the arrangement legally - primary custody for Holmes, or joint custody. So the court adopted the schedule but let both sides file written arguments about the correct label. The district court decided the arrangement was joint physical custody. It reached that conclusion by counting the nights the child would spend with each parent, finding the child would be with Serrano about 156 nights a year, which is roughly 42 percent of the year - above the 40-percent line that courts use as a general guideline for joint custody. The Court of Appeals reversed. It explained that under Nevada Supreme Court decisions, counting nights alone is the wrong way to measure how custody time is split. The correct approach looks at which parent actually supervises the child, provides a home, and makes day-to-day decisions - not simply where the child sleeps on a given night. The appeals court also pointed out that the district court did not make any findings about what was in the child's best interest, which Nevada law treats as the most important factor in deciding the custody designation. The court noted that part of the problem came from how the parties themselves framed their arguments - they asked the court to decide the label purely from the written schedule, without offering details about who actually handled the child's daily care. Even so, the Court of Appeals concluded the district court used the wrong legal standard and sent the case back for further proceedings. The court also noted that Serrano did not file a brief on appeal. While the court could have treated that as a concession that he was wrong and reversed on that basis alone, it chose not to and instead decided the case on the merits.

This case is about what a Nevada judge must consider when one divorced (or separated) parent who already has primary physical custody of a child wants to move with the child out of state, and the other parent objects. Anthony Monahan and Amanda Hogan share a daughter, born in 2012. They originally had joint custody while both lived in Yerington, Nevada. After Hogan's new husband (a Navy officer) was assigned to a base in Fallon, Hogan moved there with the child, and the district court awarded her primary physical custody in 2019. When Hogan's husband was later reassigned to Virginia Beach, Hogan asked the court for permission to relocate with the child to Virginia. Monahan refused to consent, so the court held an evidentiary hearing. Nevada's relocation statute, NRS 125C.007, requires a parent who wants to relocate to clear three threshold hurdles: (1) a sensible, good-faith reason for the move; (2) that the move is in the "best interests of the child"; and (3) that the child and the relocating parent will gain an "actual advantage" from the move. If those are met, the court then weighs six additional relocation factors. The dispute in this appeal centered on hurdle two. The statute uses the phrase "best interests of the child" but does not say what that means or whether the judge must walk through the twelve "best interest" custody factors listed in a separate statute, NRS 125C.0035(4). Monahan argued that the district court had to redo the full twelve-factor custody analysis at the relocation hearing, and that simply pointing back to findings made in earlier custody orders made the analysis "stale." Hogan argued the custody factors had no place in a relocation analysis because she already held primary custody. The Nevada Court of Appeals took a middle path. It held that when a parent who already has primary physical custody seeks to relocate, the trial judge does not have to re-prove custody by mechanically running through every one of the twelve custody best interest factors. But the judge cannot ignore those factors either. The judge should consider the custody best interest factors and any other factors that fit the case, make specific findings on whichever ones are relevant, and tie those findings to the conclusion about whether the move is in the child's best interests. The court also answered a question the parties had not directly briefed: how convinced does the judge need to be? The answer is "preponderance of the evidence" - meaning more likely than not - which is the default standard in Nevada family law unless the Legislature clearly says otherwise. Applying these rules to this case, the Court of Appeals concluded the district court did enough. The judge had previously made detailed best-interest findings (knowing that Hogan's husband might be transferred), incorporated those findings, found that nothing about the proposed move changed them, and made fresh findings about the actual advantages of the Virginia move - better tutoring and educational resources, a better quality of life, and not being separated from a half-sibling. Monahan never identified any specific factor that, if reanalyzed, would have weighed against relocation. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the order allowing the move.