Nevada family-law case summaries

Cheryl Slader and Cory Colley married in 2007 and have one child. Cory filed for divorce in 2019, and after a trial on custody issues, the district court entered a divorce decree in June 2022 that gave both parents joint legal custody but gave Cory primary physical custody, with parenting time for Cheryl. The decree left some things unfinished - the holiday and parenting-time schedule, and the division of the couple's property and debts. Cheryl tried to appeal that decree right away, but the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the decree was not a "final" order that could be appealed. In July 2023, a different district judge entered an order finishing the custody scheduling issues, and Cheryl appealed again. The Court of Appeals first sorted out what it could and could not review. Because the property-and-debt issues still had not been resolved, there was no final judgment in the case, so the court dismissed the parts of Cheryl's appeal that challenged the bifurcation (splitting) of the trial and the alimony and child support decisions - it had no jurisdiction over those. But a court rule, NRAP 3A(b)(7), allows an appeal from an order that "finally establishes or alters the custody of minor children," so the court could review the custody rulings. The court also declined Cheryl's request to convert the appeal into a petition for a writ of prohibition (an extraordinary court order directed at a lower court), because she cited no supporting authority and because she could already appeal the custody order. On the merits, the court repeatedly ran into a problem with the appellate record - the set of documents an appellant must give the appeals court. Cheryl did not include the district court's discovery or pretrial orders, her answer and counterclaim, her pretrial memorandum, or the trial exhibits. Under Nevada law, when an appellant leaves out documents the appeals court needs, the court presumes the missing documents support the lower court's decision. That presumption defeated her arguments about discovery time, the three-hour trial limit, and much of her evidence-based challenge to the custody ruling. On the custody decision itself, the district court had weighed the statutory "best interest of the child" factors and found most of them equal or inapplicable, but concluded that the nature of the child's relationship with each parent "is the tiebreaker" - the child reported feeling comforted and validated with his father and found his mother "argumentative and unrelenting." Cheryl also argued that Cory had committed domestic violence, which under Nevada law can create a presumption against awarding custody to that parent - but only if proved by clear and convincing evidence after an evidentiary hearing. The district court found her evidence (video without audio that did not show the alleged incident, a notarized letter, and a couples' therapist's testimony about an aggressive outburst in a counseling session) did not meet that standard. The Court of Appeals held that, on the limited record before it, substantial evidence supported those findings, and it would not reweigh evidence or credibility on appeal. Finally, Cheryl argued the district court had to make an express finding under NRS 125C.003(1)(a) that she was unable to care for the child at least 146 days per year before awarding primary physical custody to Cory. The Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that the statute does not require such a finding and that the sole consideration in a custody determination is the child's best interest. The court affirmed the custody determination.