Nevada family-law case summaries

Kevin De Vincenzi and Jennifer Reeves entered into a domestic partnership in Nevada in November 2018 and have two children together. In August 2021, Reeves took the children to visit her sister in Midland, Texas. While she was there, De Vincenzi told her he had begun a relationship with the children's nanny and was ending his relationship with Reeves. In September 2021, De Vincenzi filed a petition to terminate the domestic partnership and obtained a temporary protective order barring Reeves from their shared Las Vegas home. According to the opinion, Reeves had not initially planned to stay in Texas, but she decided to remain because she and the children had no return airline tickets, she was unemployed and financially dependent on De Vincenzi, and De Vincenzi did not respond to her messages about returning to Las Vegas with the children. She eventually decided to relocate permanently to Midland, where she got a job and a house. After extended litigation and a trial at which both parties testified and presented evidence, the district court entered a written order giving Reeves primary physical custody in Texas. De Vincenzi appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court explained that it does not overturn a district court's custody decision unless there was a clear abuse of discretion, and that it does not re-weigh the evidence or reassess which witnesses were believable — that job belongs to the trial judge who heard the testimony. De Vincenzi first argued that Reeves broke the law by relocating without the consent required under a Nevada statute. The court held that statute did not apply because it only governs situations where a court has already issued a custody order, and here no court order about custody existed when Reeves went to Texas or when she decided to stay. The court also examined a separate criminal-type statute about wrongfully removing or concealing a child. It held that statute did apply (because there was no custody order, both parents shared legal and physical custody by default), but that Reeves did not violate it: the trial court found she had traveled for a short visit, kept communicating with De Vincenzi about returning, and got no response from him after he ended the relationship and obtained a protective order keeping her out of their home. De Vincenzi next argued the district court should not have considered relocation because Reeves never filed a formal relocation petition. The court rejected this, again noting the consent statute did not apply, and pointing out that De Vincenzi had agreed early in the case to a custody evaluation that included relocation and to admitting the relocation assessment at trial, so he had notice that relocation would be decided. Finally, De Vincenzi challenged the trial court's conclusion that primary physical custody with Reeves served the children's best interests. The court held the district court had conducted a thorough analysis of the statutory best-interest factors, and that De Vincenzi was essentially asking the appellate court to re-weigh the evidence — something it does not do. The court affirmed.

Magdalena Ocasio and Jonathan Wirsz were never married but have one child together, M.W., born in 2014. Over several years they repeatedly went to court over custody. In 2020, a judge gave Wirsz primary physical custody and both parents shared joint legal custody, but with Wirsz holding "tie-breaking" authority to make decisions when they disagreed. Wirsz later asked to move with M.W. from Nevada to Idaho, saying he had a business opportunity there. Before the court ruled, the parents reached an agreement (called an "amended stipulation and order," or ASAO) that let him move and kept the existing custody arrangement. In that agreement, both parents gave up the right to reconsider or appeal the 2020 custody order or the ASAO, agreed that the winner of any future dispute about the agreement would get attorney fees, and promised to talk to each other about concerns over M.W. before taking those concerns to anyone else. Later, Ocasio claimed Wirsz tricked her into the move because he never actually took the Idaho business job. She also alleged he punished M.W. by making her eat hot sauce or hot peppers. She asked the court to change custody and move M.W. back to Nevada. An earlier appeal sent part of the case back to the trial court for a hearing on some of her claims — but that earlier decision also said Ocasio was not entitled to a hearing on her fraud claims because she had not shown the alleged fraud was a legally significant change, and had not filed the specific kind of motion (an NRCP 60(b) motion) needed to undo the ASAO. Back in the trial court, the fight expanded. Wirsz asked for sole legal custody, for Ocasio's parenting time to be reduced, and for her to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. He also asked the court to hold her in contempt for accusing him of abuse without first raising it with him as the ASAO required. Ocasio tried to subpoena records about Wirsz's Idaho business to prove the alleged fraud. The court blocked those subpoenas, finding the business records irrelevant because Ocasio had never filed a motion to set aside the ASAO and had a history of misusing Wirsz's financial information. At a multi-day hearing, a psychiatrist Wirsz hired, Dr. Gregory Brown, testified that Ocasio met the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and explained how that condition can make coparenting very difficult. Ocasio wanted to challenge that diagnosis using raw test data from another psychologist, Dr. Bradley, but Dr. Bradley did not appear to testify. Ocasio never formally asked the court to force Dr. Bradley to testify or to delay the hearing for that purpose. The court also excluded Ocasio's rebuttal expert, Wygant, because he was disclosed too late, and Ocasio never filed a written response opposing his exclusion. After the hearing, the court denied Ocasio's request to move M.W. and change custody, kept Wirsz's primary physical custody, gave Wirsz sole legal custody, and held Ocasio in contempt for making abuse claims in a 2021 declaration without first discussing them with Wirsz. The court also awarded Wirsz roughly $69,000 in attorney fees and about $86,000 in costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected all of Ocasio's arguments. It held that because she never filed the proper motion to undo the ASAO, the trial court did not have to revisit the fraud claim or allow discovery about the Idaho business. It held she gave up (forfeited) her arguments about the witnesses because she did not properly raise them below. It held the court could rely on Dr. Brown's diagnosis, which was supported by the evidence, and that the court properly connected her diagnosis and her refusal to communicate to its decision to give Wirsz sole legal custody. Finally, it upheld the fee and cost awards, though it affirmed the fees on a different legal basis (NRS 125C.250) than the trial court used, and it held Ocasio lost her challenge to the costs because she filed the wrong type of paper (an opposition instead of a motion to retax) and filed it too late.

This case concerns a custody dispute between two parents, Magdalena Ocasio and Jonathan Jordan Wirsz, who share a minor child referred to as M.W. In June 2020, Wirsz was granted primary physical custody, joint legal custody, and "tie breaking decision-making authority" - meaning the ability to make the final call when the parents disagree on decisions about the child. In September 2020, the parents agreed to an amended arrangement (called the ASAO) that let Wirsz and the child move to northern Idaho while keeping the same custody structure. That agreement also set a parenting-time schedule and a three-year pause on further court fights, with exceptions for emergencies and serious breaches. After the agreement took effect, Ocasio came to believe that Wirsz should not have primary custody and decision-making power. In August 2021 she asked the court to change the custody arrangement. The district court denied her request without holding an evidentiary hearing - that is, a hearing where evidence and testimony are presented. The court's order essentially stated that Ocasio had not made "a prima facie case of a substantial change in circumstance" affecting the child's welfare. A "prima facie case" means enough of an initial showing, taken as true, to justify a fuller look at the issue. Ocasio raised two main claims. First, she argued the original relocation agreement was based on fraud because Wirsz never took the job that supposedly justified the move to Idaho. The Court of Appeals declined to consider this argument, explaining that Ocasio provided no legal authority showing that discovering alleged fraud counts as a substantial change of circumstances affecting the child, and noting she did not file a motion under the rule that allows setting aside an order for fraud. Second, Ocasio alleged that Wirsz was limiting her parenting time and turning the child against her - including disrupting Skype calls, blocking her from medical information, limiting her access to information about the child's education, refusing to investigate potential medical issues, and scheduling flights to interfere with her parenting time. The Court of Appeals concluded that these allegations were new, not merely repetitive, and could show a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare. Because Wirsz had not conclusively disproven these allegations at this stage, the court held that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing. The court reversed and sent the case back for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals also addressed Ocasio's request for attorney fees. It concluded she did not raise a new claim for attorney fees in her November 2021 motion, and that her failure to respond to Wirsz's argument on that point was treated as a concession that his argument had merit.