Nevada family-law case summaries

Eric and Samantha were never married but have a child together. Eric went to court asking for primary physical custody and child support. After some back-and-forth motions, the court scheduled a calendar call and an evidentiary hearing to decide custody, and notified both parties. Eric did not show up to the calendar call. The court's minutes reflect that the judge said the evidentiary hearing would still happen, and if Eric again failed to appear, the court would strike his complaint and enter a custody order for Samantha. Eric did not appear at the evidentiary hearing. As a result, the court struck his complaint, entered a default against him (a default is a judgment entered against a party who fails to participate), and — after hearing testimony from Samantha in what the court called a "prove-up hearing" — awarded Samantha sole legal and sole physical custody. The decree also said child support would be handled by the district attorney's office and would be retroactive to May 2019. After the decree, Eric filed several motions, including one asking the court to vacate (cancel) the custody decree and one seeking a preliminary injunction. The court denied both, and Eric appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals focused on whether the district court properly explained its custody decision. Under Nevada law, when deciding custody, a court's only consideration is what is in the best interest of the child, and it must make specific written findings about that. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court did not make these required findings — it decided custody based on the default without analyzing or even mentioning the best-interest factors, and without doing the additional analysis Nevada law requires before awarding sole physical custody. Because of this, the appellate court reversed the denial of Eric's motion to vacate and sent the case back for the district court to redo the custody determination with proper findings. The appellate court also reversed the award of attorney fees and costs to Samantha, since that award was tied to the custody decision. The court affirmed one part of the lower court's rulings: the denial of Eric's motion for a preliminary injunction. Eric provided no argument supporting that part of his appeal, so the court did not disturb it. The appellate court also noted that the district court had improperly deferred the child support calculation to the district attorney's office. Under Nevada law, the court itself must determine child support, so on remand it must make that determination. In the meantime, the existing custody arrangement stays in place, subject to change by the district court.