Nevada family-law case summaries

Jon and Melissa Pearson divorced in 2019 and shared their twin sons on a "one week on/one week off" schedule. Both boys have medical needs: one has epilepsy and other conditions, and the other sees a heart specialist for a congenital heart defect. In January 2024, Jon received a job offer from Tesla that required him to move to Austin, Texas. He believed the move offered a significant pay increase, free health insurance, and, based on his research, better schools and medical care for the boys. He asked Melissa to agree to a new custody arrangement so he could relocate with the children; she refused. Jon then filed a motion in court asking to be given primary physical custody so he could move the boys to Texas. When his emergency request was denied, Jon moved to Texas with his current wife and their young son, while the twins stayed in Las Vegas with Melissa pending a full hearing. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Jon's relocation request, awarded Melissa primary physical custody, set a parenting-time schedule for Jon, and ordered Jon to pay monthly child support. The court largely adopted the proposed order that Melissa's attorneys had drafted. Jon appealed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision for what the law calls an "abuse of discretion" - meaning a decision unsupported by the evidence, clearly wrong, or made by disregarding the controlling legal rules. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court made several connected errors. First, the Court of Appeals held that the district court was wrong to find that Jon's move to Texas was not a "substantial change in circumstances" affecting the children. Because the parents could no longer keep the every-other-week schedule once Jon lived in Texas, the children's lives would be affected no matter what the court decided. Second, the Court of Appeals found that the district court applied the wrong legal standard when weighing the move. The court had faulted Jon for not proving that the children's schools and doctors in Las Vegas were "substandard" or inadequate. But under Nevada law, Jon did not have to prove that Las Vegas was bad; he only had to show that the children's needs might be *better* served, or that they would gain an *actual advantage*, by moving to Texas. The district court never made findings on that question. Third, the Court of Appeals held that several of the district court's findings improperly punished Jon for deciding to relocate and for the arguments his lawyers made during the case. Under Nevada law, a court may not use a change of custody as a "sword" to punish a parent's conduct or litigation tactics. Fourth, the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court focused too heavily on keeping things exactly as they were for Melissa, rather than seriously considering whether an alternative parenting-time schedule - Jon had proposed one, plus travel contributions and iPads for communication - could preserve Melissa's relationship with the boys. The court also found the district court's suggestion that Jon might try to "replace" Melissa with his new family was speculative and contradicted by the court's own other findings that both parents had cooperated. Because it was unclear whether the district court would have reached the same result without these errors, the Court of Appeals reversed the order and sent the case back for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals noted that the district court may hold a new hearing to consider the family's current circumstances and the children's wishes, since more than a year had passed and the children would soon turn 13.

Paul and Jennifer Martinez divorced in California in 2015 and share a child, L.M. Jennifer received primary physical custody, and the parents shared joint legal custody. Jennifer later moved with the child to Nevada with court permission, and the case eventually transferred to Nevada courts. After further disputes, the Nevada district court increased Paul's visitation time and ordered Jennifer to pay all the costs of transporting L.M. to and from visits with Paul, reasoning that because Jennifer was the parent who moved away from California, she should bear those costs. Jennifer challenged two parts of that ruling: the order making her pay 100% of travel costs, and the decision to expand Paul's visitation beyond what the parties had specifically asked the court to address. On the travel-cost issue, the Nevada Supreme Court agreed with Jennifer. Nevada has a detailed administrative regulation, NAC 425.150, that lists factors a court must consider before adjusting child support away from the standard formula. One of those factors is the cost of transporting the child for visitation. The Court held that a district court cannot simply impose all travel costs on one parent as a stand-alone order; instead, those costs must be evaluated as part of the overall child support analysis, looking at the child's needs and both parents' financial circumstances. The district court's reliance on the fact that Jennifer had moved years earlier, by itself, was not a proper basis for assigning her all the costs. On the visitation issue, the Court sided with the district court. Although Jennifer argued she did not have fair notice that the court might broadly change the visitation schedule, the Court found she had put visitation squarely before the court (by asking that Paul's visits be supervised), testified at length on the topic, and had the chance to present evidence. The Court also found enough evidence in the record - including doctor notes and Paul's own testimony - to support letting Paul have a standard out-of-state unsupervised visitation schedule. The Court reversed the travel-cost portion of the order and sent the case back to the district court with instructions to apply the NAC 425.150 framework. It affirmed everything else and declined to sanction Jennifer for bringing the appeal.

Natalie and Doug Gennardo married in 2002 and had three children. Doug filed for divorce in May 2019. After Doug moved out in December 2019, the parents tried to share custody, but there was significant conflict. According to the opinion, Natalie struggled with extreme alcohol abuse and sometimes exhibited violent behavior. After a confrontation between the parents in April 2020, Doug asked the court for primary physical custody. Natalie agreed to attend a 30-day treatment program in Arizona. While she was away, the court put a temporary arrangement in place giving Doug primary physical custody and leaving contact between Natalie and the children at Doug's discretion. A therapist was enlisted to try to repair Natalie's relationship with the children, which had seriously deteriorated. The children reported not wanting to see her. For roughly a year, Natalie could see the children only under the therapist's supervision or when Doug allowed it, and the court did not set a parenting-time schedule or hold a hearing on the temporary arrangement during that time. Because the case had complicated financial issues that delayed the trial, the court eventually decided in February 2021 to resolve custody before the trial on money matters. It held three custody hearings in April and May 2021, heard testimony, and awarded the parents joint legal custody with primary physical custody to Doug. It made findings on each of the statutory factors that guide a child's best interest. Separately, Doug's employer, Marriott, cut his pay early in the pandemic and told him in June 2021 that his Las Vegas position would be eliminated. In July, Marriott offered him a comparable job in Texas. Doug accepted and asked the court to let the children move with him. In August 2021, the court allowed a temporary move ahead of a promised hearing meant to permanently decide the relocation issue. That hearing was never held. Instead, after the trial on the financial matters, the court entered a final decree making the relocation permanent. Natalie asked the court to reconsider because the promised hearing never happened; the court denied her request. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reached different conclusions on the different issues. On custody, the court said the trial judge did not strictly follow Nevada's process favoring joint physical custody and may have shifted the burden of proof onto Natalie, which was an error. But the court concluded the custody decision was still supported by substantial evidence and adequately explained, so it did not reverse the custody award. The court also found that the trial judge had improperly created what amounted to a de facto sole physical custody arrangement — giving Doug complete control over Natalie's time with the children and refusing to set a schedule or a hearing for about a year — and then gave too much weight to that one year while disregarding Natalie's 16 years as the children's primary caretaker. The court called this clearly erroneous but concluded it did not change the custody result because Natalie did not show a different outcome was reasonably likely without the error. On the temporary relocation, the court held the trial judge acted within its discretion in allowing the children to move temporarily before a hearing, given the exigent circumstances of Doug being the family's sole provider and needing to start a job in another state. On the permanent relocation, however, the court held that the trial judge abused its discretion by making it permanent without ever holding the evidentiary hearing it had repeatedly promised. Because no actual evidence was taken, the court's relocation "findings" rested only on lawyers' arguments and motion exhibits, which the appellate court found insufficient. The court further held that this deprived Natalie of her constitutionally protected due process rights, because she was never given the opportunity to challenge Doug's claims and present her own evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody decision, reversed the permanent relocation, and sent the case back for a prompt hearing on relocation. It noted the temporary relocation order may remain in effect while that hearing is pending.

Jennifer and Paul Martinez divorced in California, where Jennifer received primary physical custody of their child, L.M., and permission to move with the child to Nevada. Once the Nevada courts took over the custody case, Paul asked for primary physical custody. Jennifer opposed that request and asked the court to require that Paul's time with the child be supervised until he underwent a neuropsychological evaluation confirming he could care for L.M. without supervision. Both parents also asked the court to change the parenting-time schedule. After a hearing where evidence was presented, the district court kept primary custody with Jennifer but gave Paul more parenting time than before, refused to require supervision, and declared Paul the "prevailing party" - the side that won - for purposes of attorney fees and costs. Jennifer appealed. The Nevada Court of Appeals rejected each of Jennifer's arguments. First, she argued the district court went beyond its power and violated her due-process rights by giving Paul more parenting time than he asked for. The court disagreed, explaining that the parenting-time schedule was squarely before the district court because both parties had asked to change it. Even where the parents' proposed schedules overlapped, the district court was not locked into those points of agreement - Nevada law requires courts deciding custody matters to evaluate what is in the child's best interest. Second, Jennifer argued the hearing should not have gone forward because Paul allegedly failed to turn over medical records as previously ordered. The court found she cited no relevant discovery or evidence rules and presented no cogent argument, and noted that district courts may revise their earlier, non-final orders at any time before final judgment. Third, on the merits of the new schedule, the appeals court reviews such decisions only for "abuse of discretion" - meaning it will not second-guess the trial judge unless the decision was outside the bounds of reason. The district court addressed all the statutory best-interest factors, and the appellate court does not reweigh conflicting evidence or revisit credibility calls. Even if the trial court misread some individual pieces of evidence, the appellate court could not say the overall result would reasonably have been different. Fourth, Jennifer argued the district court failed to make required findings before ordering her to pay all costs of transporting L.M. to and from California for Paul's parenting time. The court agreed with Paul that the travel-cost order was not an adjustment of child support - the court set child support at the standard base amount and separately ordered Jennifer to pay travel costs because she was the relocating parent - so the regulation requiring those findings did not apply. Finally, because the district court had only declared Paul a prevailing party and had not yet actually awarded any fees or costs, Jennifer's challenge to any award was premature; such an award can be appealed once it is actually entered. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment.

William and Ammie Wallace married in 2009, had three children, separated in 2017, and divorced in September 2020. In their divorce decree, they agreed that Ammie would have primary physical custody and that William would have the children on weekday afternoons from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., with the parents alternating weekends. According to the opinion, the parents did not actually follow that schedule for a period. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when the children were learning from home and both parents were working from home, they used a different, more equal arrangement that William described as joint physical custody with a "2/3/2 timeshare." They kept this up until the children went back to in-person school in spring 2021, at which point they returned to the schedule written in the divorce decree. In June 2021, William asked the court to change the custody order, arguing that the parents had really been sharing custody roughly equally ("de facto joint physical custody") and that keeping that arrangement was in the children's best interest. Ammie asked the court to deny the motion without a hearing, saying William had not shown any substantial change in circumstances affecting the children, who she said were doing well in her care. After a 20-minute hearing without testimony or evidence, the district court denied William's motion. The court found that Ammie had primary physical custody (having the children about 70% of the time) and that William had not shown "adequate cause" for an evidentiary hearing because he had not demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that to change a physical custody order in Nevada, a parent must show both (1) a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare and (2) that the change serves the child's best interest. The court held that William never argued that returning to the decree's original terms was a substantial change in circumstances, so he waived that point. It also explained that a recent Nevada Supreme Court decision, Romano v. Romano, overruled the part of the older Rivero decision that William relied on - meaning a court no longer has to first decide what kind of custody arrangement exists before deciding whether to modify it. Because William did not adequately show a substantial change in circumstances, his appeal failed.

Lisa and Joel Eorio married in New Mexico in 2006 and have two children together; Joel is also the equitable father of Lisa's third child. In 2019, Lisa moved to Las Vegas for a job, and Joel followed later with the children after they finished the school year. About a year after the move, the couple separated. Joel filed for divorce and asked the court for primary physical custody so that he could move back to New Mexico with the children. Lisa answered and asked that the children stay with her in Las Vegas. Before trial, the parties reached agreements about custody depending on how the court ruled on the move. They agreed that if they lived in the same state, they would share the children (joint physical custody). If the court allowed Joel to move to New Mexico, Joel would have primary custody and Lisa would get substantial parenting time. If the court denied the move and Joel went back to New Mexico anyway, Lisa would have primary custody and the children would stay with her in Las Vegas. Because of these agreements, the only question the trial had to decide was whether Joel could relocate with the children. At an April 2021 trial, both parents testified. Joel said moving back to New Mexico would make him more financially stable because he could live rent-free with his parents and transfer his job. Lisa testified it would be better for the children to stay with her in Las Vegas. The district judge went through the legal factors and found that most of the "best interest" factors either did not apply or applied equally to both parents. Even so, the judge concluded Joel had met the legal requirements and allowed him to move to New Mexico with the children. On appeal, the Court of Appeals focused on whether the district court explained adequately why moving was in the children's best interests. Under Nevada's relocation law, the parent who wants to move must prove, among other things, that the move is in the children's best interests, and the court must make specific findings and connect those findings to its decision. The appeals court found that the written divorce decree never actually stated that relocation was in the children's best interests; it only said most factors did not apply or were equal between the parents. The court then looked at the judge's spoken findings from the trial, but those findings only showed that neither parent was disqualified from sharing custody - they did not explain how moving to New Mexico served the children's best interests. Because the court could not tell, from either the written order or the oral findings, how the judge concluded that relocation was in the children's best interests by the required standard of proof, it reversed that part of the decision and sent the case back. On remand, the district court must make specific findings, tie them to its conclusion about which best-interest factors (if any) support giving Joel primary custody for the purpose of moving, and then weigh all the factors by comparing the children's potential home in each location. The court ordered that the existing relocation order stays in effect until a new order is entered.

Matthew and Melissa Arcella divorced in 2009 and share joint legal and physical custody of their two children. They had agreed to send the kids to a small private secular school. When their older daughter R.A. was finishing elementary school in 2016, both parents agreed she should move to a larger middle school - but they could not agree on which one. Matthew wanted Faith Lutheran, a religious private school; Melissa wanted Bob Miller Middle School, a highly ranked public school closer to home, and she objected on religious grounds to her daughter receiving a religious education. The family court, without holding an evidentiary hearing or making detailed findings, picked Bob Miller. The only explanation it gave was that it was "taking into consideration [Melissa's] religious objection." Matthew appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It held that when divorced, joint-custody parents disagree about whether a child should attend a religious or non-religious school, the family court must focus on the child's best interest - not on either parent's religious preference. Treating one parent's religious objection as the deciding factor, the court explained, actually disfavors religion and runs into the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which requires the government to be neutral between religion and non-religion. The Court also faulted the family court for two procedural failures: it did not hold an evidentiary hearing even though Matthew's filings established "adequate cause" for one, and it did not make the kind of specific factual findings about R.A.'s best interest that Nevada law requires. To help guide family courts facing these school-choice disputes, the Court listed ten illustrative factors a judge should consider, including the child's wishes (if old enough), each school's ability to meet the child's educational, medical, and extracurricular needs, the quality of instruction, the commute, whether changing schools would disrupt academic progress, and whether one school choice might alienate the child from a parent. The list is a starting point, not an exhaustive checklist. The case was sent back to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing and make specific findings about which school is best for R.A. specifically.