Nevada family-law case summaries

The Ruckles had been serving as court-appointed guardians of their three granddaughters since January 2022, when a district court found that the children had been living with their mother, Sara Q., in squalid conditions and were thriving in the Ruckles' care. Over the next two years, Sara petitioned the court to begin reunification therapy - therapy designed to repair the relationship between a parent and her children - and the court eventually ordered the Ruckles, Sara, and the children to participate with a therapist named Dr. Stephanie Holland. Disagreements arose over the wording of the therapist's consent paperwork, and the therapy was slow to begin. Dr. Holland sent the court two confidential reports under NSRG 5, a rule that allows a guardianship judge to receive certain communications about a guardian's conduct or a protected person's welfare. After receiving the second report, the court issued a July 13, 2024 order expressing "significant concern" about the Ruckles' compliance with their duties, ordered the children to undergo psychoeducational testing, expanded Sara's visitation, and set an NSRG 5 hearing for July 25 to address the issues raised in Dr. Holland's report. One day before that hearing, Sara filed a petition asking the court to remove the Ruckles and terminate the guardianship. The court did not issue the formal "citations" (legal notices) that Nevada statutes require when such a petition is filed, and there is no indication the petition was set for any hearing. At the July 25 hearing, which lasted only seven minutes, the district court announced - without taking evidence, hearing argument, or directing briefing - that it was removing the Ruckles as guardians and terminating the guardianship. When the Ruckles' lawyer tried to speak, the judge said, "I understand you've stood up, but I've made my orders. I am terminating the guardianship today." The court told counsel he could file a motion for reconsideration. A written order followed in October 2024. The Ruckles appealed, arguing that they had a constitutional right to procedural due process - basic fairness, including notice and a chance to be heard - before a court could strip them of guardianship, and that they did not get either. The Court of Appeals agreed. Building on the Nevada Supreme Court's 2023 decision in In re Guardianship of D.M.F., the Court of Appeals expressly held that a custodial relative who serves as a guardian has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the child, and is therefore entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court may, on its own initiative, remove the guardian and terminate the guardianship. The court found the notice given here was inadequate. The July 13 order flagged concerns but did not signal that removal or termination was being considered. Sara's last-minute petition came too late and was not accompanied by the statutorily required citations. And even if notice had been adequate, there was no meaningful opportunity to be heard because the district court issued its ruling at the start of a brief hearing, without briefing, evidence, or argument. Rather than simply reversing, the Court of Appeals vacated the order and sent the case back. Because Dr. Holland's confidential reports were not in the appellate record - and because Sara's petition described serious allegations including alleged emotional, psychological, and physical abuse and educational neglect - the court directed the district court on remand to permit briefing, hold an evidentiary hearing, and make the specific findings required by Nevada statutes and the NSRG before deciding whether removal or termination is warranted. In the meantime, the children will remain in Sara's physical and legal custody pending the district court's decision, although the trial court retains authority to enter temporary or emergency orders if circumstances require. The Court of Appeals also noted that the matter is moot as to the eldest child, A.L.R.-Q., because she has turned 18.

Eric and Vanessa Mesi married in Nevada in 2005 and over the years lived in both Nevada and California. In late 2018 they moved together to Las Vegas, but Vanessa returned to California about a month later. In January 2019, Vanessa filed for divorce in California. Two months later, Eric filed for divorce in Nevada. Each spouse wanted the case decided in their preferred state. Eric asked the California court to dismiss Vanessa's case, arguing that her one month in Nevada interrupted her California residency and meant she did not meet California's six-month residency requirement to file for divorce there. The California court had not ruled on that argument. Meanwhile, Vanessa asked the Nevada court to dismiss Eric's Nevada case under the "first-to-file rule" - a doctrine that says when the same lawsuit is filed in two courts, the second court usually defers to the first. Instead of holding a hearing or ruling based on the written filings, the Nevada judge personally telephoned the California judge. Neither Eric nor Vanessa, nor their lawyers, were on the call. The Nevada judge confirmed through that call that Vanessa had filed first, then immediately dismissed the Nevada case. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed. It held two things. First, the Nevada judge violated Eric's right to due process by gathering information through an ex parte phone call with another judge and basing the decision on that call without giving the parties a chance to respond. Courts are generally not allowed to investigate facts on their own outside the record. The Court noted, however, that this particular due process error was harmless, because the first-to-file rule clearly applied based on the undisputed evidence already in the record. Second, even though the first-to-file rule applied, the Nevada court should not have dismissed the case outright. Because Eric had a pending challenge to California's jurisdiction, the proper course was to stay (pause) the Nevada case rather than dismiss it. That way, if the California court ultimately decides it does not have jurisdiction, the Nevada case can simply be revived without forcing Eric to file again. If California decides it does have jurisdiction, the Nevada case can then be dismissed. The Court therefore sent the case back with instructions to enter a stay. Either party can later ask the Nevada court to lift the stay depending on what the California court decides.