Nevada family-law case summaries

Michael and Ellen Bluestein divorced in 2004 after 13 years of marriage and one child together. They agreed Michael would have the child from Thursday evening to Sunday morning each week, with Ellen having the child the rest of the time. A month after the divorce, they filed a parenting agreement, adopted by the court, that called the arrangement "joint legal and physical custody." Neither parent paid child support. Years later, Michael started receiving public assistance. The State went after Ellen for partial reimbursement as child support. To avoid the joint-custody child support formula (which produced an $82-per-month obligation for her), Ellen asked the family court to relabel her as the "primary physical custodian." She did not ask to change the actual schedule - just the legal label. Her argument relied on a 2009 Nevada Supreme Court case, Rivero v. Rivero, which said that a joint physical custody arrangement generally requires each parent to have the child at least 40 percent of the time (about 146 days a year). Ellen calculated that Michael had the child only 38 percent of the time, below the threshold. The district court agreed with Ellen. After an evidentiary hearing focused largely on who was responsible for the child on Thursdays, the court found Ellen had the child 260 days and Michael 105 days in 2011, and on that basis redesignated her as primary physical custodian. The court then sent the case back to a child support master to recalculate support. The court did not say whether changing the custody label was in the child's best interest. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It made two main points. First, once either parent asks the court to revisit a custody agreement, the court does have authority to review the arrangement and apply current Nevada law - even if the moving parent only asks to change the label, not the timeshare. Second, and more importantly, the 40-percent guideline from Rivero is just a tool. It cannot be applied mechanically as the only factor. The controlling question, by statute, is what is in the child's best interest. Because the district court treated the 40-percent figure as the sole basis for changing the custody designation - and never made findings about the child's best interest - it abused its discretion. The Court was particularly concerned that this kind of mechanical application can result in stripping a parent of joint custody status (with downstream consequences for child support) even when the existing schedule gives the child frequent contact with both parents and even when the only reason for the relabeling is to shift the support calculation. The case was sent back to the family court to reconsider the request with the child's best interest as the primary focus.