Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Family law (7)
- Family Law (6)
- Child custody (4)
- Custody (3)
- Parental Rights (3)
-
- 125 Nev. 410 (2)
- CHILD CUSTODY (2)
- Child Custody (2)
- Child Support (2)
- Civil procedure (2)
- Divorce (2)
- Due Process (2)
- FAMILY LAW (2)
- Rivero v. Rivero (2)
- Termination (2)
- Termination of parental rights (2)
- 1035¬¬–36 (2013); Rennels v. Rennels (1)
- 127 Nev. ___ (1)
- 129 Nev. ___ (1)
- 216 P.3d 213 (2009) (1)
- 257 P.3d 396 (1)
- 309 P.3d 1027 (1)
- 399 (2011) (1)
- Abuse (1)
- Ashleigh Wise (1)
- CHILD CUSTODY: CHILD’S EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT (1)
- Child abuse (1)
- Child protection (1)
- Child relocation (1)
- Child support (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 58
Full-Text Articles in Law
Martin V. Martin, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Dec. 01, 2022), Caitlin Gwin
Martin V. Martin, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 78 (Dec. 01, 2022), Caitlin Gwin
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
In this decision authored by Justice Stiglich, the Court held that a property settlement incident to a divorce decree is enforceable when it requires a divorcing veteran spouse to make payments from military disability pay. Although federal law prohibits state courts from awarding veteran disability pay in a divorce, the Court found an indemnification provision in a property settlement resulting in the payment of disability pay was enforceable because the parties had previously negotiated and agreed to the terms. While the Court would not have been able to award veteran disability pay as part of a property settlement, the divorcing …
Matkulak V. Davis, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Sept. 01, 2022), Sam Pope
Matkulak V. Davis, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 61 (Sept. 01, 2022), Sam Pope
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Deviations from the Nevada Administration Code’s framework for calculating a parent’s base child support obligations may not exceed the party’s total obligation. Furthermore, a district court’s decision to award reasonable attorney fees and costs will stand absent an abuse of discretion. Here, the district court deviated from NAC 425.150(1)’s framework and increased the appellant’s child support obligation by nearly $2,000 per month over NAC 425.140’s base child support obligation. This deviation exceeded the appellant’s monthly total obligation which the district court calculated to $823.04. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to …
Martinez V. Avila, Jr., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (June 30, 2022), Candace Mays
Martinez V. Avila, Jr., 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 49 (June 30, 2022), Candace Mays
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed a district court’s decision granting legal paternity to the biological father of a child over the objection of the person who assumed paternity over the child pursuant to a Voluntary Parenting Agreement. The Court held that while paternity can be established and memorialized through written instruments, biological paternity is supreme.
Yesennia Esmeralda Amaya V Milton Orlando Guerrero Rivera, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (July 3, 2019), Salma Granich
Yesennia Esmeralda Amaya V Milton Orlando Guerrero Rivera, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 27 (July 3, 2019), Salma Granich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that under NRS 3.2203 (1) an order determining physical custody of a child satisfied the dependency or custody prong for Special Immigrant Juvenile predicate findings; and (2) in order to determine predicate findings, the reunification prong is satisfied where the juvenile cannot reunify with at least one parent.
Mulkern V. Eight Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 82 (Oct. 18, 2018), Adrianna Guida
Mulkern V. Eight Jud. Dist. Ct., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 82 (Oct. 18, 2018), Adrianna Guida
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined the presumption under NRS § 432B.550(5)(a), that a child’s best interest is to be placed together with the siblings of the child, also applies to adopted children. Further, the Court held adoption does not sever a biological sibling relationship for purposes of NRS § 432B.550(5)(a).
In Re Parental Rights As To S.L., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 2, 2018), Maliq Kendricks
In Re Parental Rights As To S.L., 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 59 (Aug. 2, 2018), Maliq Kendricks
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that termination of parental rights is valid when parents fail to take necessary remedial action for reunification with their children and the termination is in the best interest of the children pursuant to NRS 128.105(1)(a).
In Re: Matter Of E.R. C/W 73198, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (May 3, 2018), Matthew J. Mckissick
In Re: Matter Of E.R. C/W 73198, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 29 (May 3, 2018), Matthew J. Mckissick
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that once parental rights have been terminated, NRS 128.110(2) is the appropriate standard for applying the familial placement preference—not NRS 432B.550(5).
Miller V. Miller, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 15, 2018), Anna Sichting
Miller V. Miller, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 16 (Mar. 15, 2018), Anna Sichting
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
When the parents share joint physical custody of one minor child but one of the parents has primary physical custody of the other minor child, the district court must use additional steps in order to properly utilize the statutory child support formula. Further, the courts must make specific findings of fact if they deviate from the standard statutory formula.
Arcella V. Arcella, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 26, 2017), Shannon Zahm
Arcella V. Arcella, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 26, 2017), Shannon Zahm
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that district court’s focus—in a child custody case regarding educational placement—must remain on the child’s best interest and not on the religious objections made by a parent. Specifically, the Court found that the district court abused its discretion by (1) treating one parent’s religious objection as dispositive; (2) failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; and (3) failing to support its order with specific, factual findings.
In Re Parental Rights As To T.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (Dec. 7, 2017), Steven Kish
In Re Parental Rights As To T.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (Dec. 7, 2017), Steven Kish
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that parents who have terminated their parental rights do not have standing to challenge a district court’s placement of their child.
Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert
Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion in allowing illegally recorded conversations to be used by a court appointed child psychologist to evaluate a child’s welfare in a custody case.
Yu V. Yu, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (Nov. 22, 2017), Samantha Scofield
Yu V. Yu, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (Nov. 22, 2017), Samantha Scofield
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Though vexatious litigant determinations are not independently appealable, they may be considered on appeal when included in an otherwise appealable order.
In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl
In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that (1) requiring a parent to admit guilt to a criminal act in order to maintain his or her parental rights violates that parent’s Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) substantial evidence must demonstrate that terminating parental rights is in the best interest of the children when a parent overcomes the presumptions in NRS 128.109(1)-(2).
Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez
Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that, without notice, a permanent change to custody and visitation violates due process rights, and the affected party must be given the opportunity to respond and rebut the evidence. Further, when the district court conducts an alternative interview with a child, the interviews must be recorded and comply with the Uniform Child Witness Testimony by Alternative Methods Act.
In Re: Parental Rights As To R.T., K.G-T., N.H-T. And E.H-T, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 29, 2017), Brittni Griffith
In Re: Parental Rights As To R.T., K.G-T., N.H-T. And E.H-T, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (June 29, 2017), Brittni Griffith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court reviewed an appeal based on the termination of an individual’s parental rights. The Court held that “[a] party petitioning to terminate parental rights must establish by clear and convincing evidence that (1) termination is in the child’s best interest, and 2) parental fault exists.” Relying on previous decisions, the Court confirmed that poverty may not be a factor when it determines “parental fault,” but the Court may consider a parent’s compliance with a case plan. Here, the Court reaffirmed the district court’s decision because it relied on “substantial evidence” that Appellant did not follow her case plan, despite …
Vaile V. Porsboll, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (June 22, 2017), Stephanie Glantz
Vaile V. Porsboll, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (June 22, 2017), Stephanie Glantz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
Nevada child support order controls Norway order when the parents filed for divorce in Nevada, even though the children reside in Norway. Additionally, the Nevada Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hold the parent in contempt and to impose sanctions for failure to meet his or her child support obligations.
Nguyen V. Boynes, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (June 22, 2017), Angela Lee
Nguyen V. Boynes, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (June 22, 2017), Angela Lee
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Nevada Supreme Court held that granting joint legal and physical custody to the non-adoptive parent in a same-sex couple adoption does not violate the equitable adoption doctrine or the equal protection clauses of the United States and Nevada State Constitutions.
Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly
Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) family courts have subject matter jurisdiction in divorce proceedings that involve issues otherwise outside the scope of family courts, (2) parol evidence may not be considered to determine party intent to form separate property agreements and self-settled spendthrift trusts where the written agreements are valid and unambiguous, (3) a court order equalizing assets between different spendthrift trusts is improper because the NRS protects against court orders that move assets from trusts and against moves that do not benefit trust beneficiaries, (4) spendthrift trusts may not be reached for payment of personal obligations not known at …
In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings
In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that (1) when a parent is deemed incompetent to stand a criminal trial, there is no statutory authority requiring the district court to continue a parallel parental rights termination trial so that the parent can regain competence; and (2) when a litigant fails to object to the State’s method of service in initial pleadings or during trial, the litigant waives all challenges to the service of a parental rights termination by publication.
Petit V. Adrianzen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Apr. 13, 2017), Skyler Sullivan
Petit V. Adrianzen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Apr. 13, 2017), Skyler Sullivan
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considers, as a matter of first impression, the standard of proof to be applied by district courts in resolving initial naming disputes of a child of married parents. The focus should be on the best interest of the child and neither parent should have the burden of proof. The Court held the district court determined the child’s name should be hyphenated to include both parent’s surnames and, in doing so, considered the best interests of the child and, thus, the order is affirmed.
Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson
Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that: (1) the six-year statute of limitations in NRS 11.190(1)(a) applies to claims for enforcement of a property distribution provision in a divorce decree; and (2) the statute of limitations period in an action on a divorce decree commences “from the last transaction or the last item charged or last credit given.”
Kar V. Kar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (August 12, 2016), Briana Martinez
Kar V. Kar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (August 12, 2016), Briana Martinez
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to modify child custody and support. The Court held that the district court lost exclusive, continuing jurisdiction when the parents and child left Nevada. However, this did not end the jurisdictional analysis. The district court should have considered whether it retained jurisdiction under NRS 125.315(2) and NRS 125.305.
Harrison V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Jul. 28, 2016), Douglas H. Smith
Harrison V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Jul. 28, 2016), Douglas H. Smith
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that a district court’s written order concerning the custody of two minor children did not violate public policy when its stipulations provided (1) that it was within the discretion of each minor child, after reaching the age of 14, to decide how much time to spend with either of their divorced parents as long as the original arrangement for joint physical custody remained intact, and (2) that a “parent coordinator” would be appointed to resolve disputes and whose role could be defined by a written district court order. Three justices dissented that the first provision encroaches on …
Lewis V. Lewis, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
Lewis V. Lewis, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 30, 2016), Paul George
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
A contempt order that does not contain a purge clause is criminal in nature, therefore the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies.
Valdez V. Aguilar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 26, 2016), Kory Koerperich
Valdez V. Aguilar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 26, 2016), Kory Koerperich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court determined that NRS 425.360(4) does not exempt a noncustodial parent, who receives public assistance, from a court-ordered child support obligation to the custodial parent of their child. NRS 425.360(4) only exempts a parent from a debt for support owed to the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services.
State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell
State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
NRS 432B.6075 governs emergency admission of children with emotional disturbances to facilities for their protection, and requires a petition for continuance of admission after an emergency admission within five days of the involuntary placement.[1] Based on N.R.C.P. 6(a), which governs the computing of time for judicial purposes, the Court held that the five day limitation on filing a petition was based on judicial, not calendar, days. The Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its order denying the State’s NRS 432B petition.
In Re Parental Rights As To M.F., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Mar. 31, 2016), Shannon Diaz
In Re Parental Rights As To M.F., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Mar. 31, 2016), Shannon Diaz
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court held that neither the United States Constitution nor the Nevada Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in a termination of parental rights proceeding. The Court also concluded that the district court relied on substantial evidence in terminating appellant Jesus F.’s parental rights.
Micone V. Micone, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (March 3, 2016), Ronni Boskovich
Micone V. Micone, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (March 3, 2016), Ronni Boskovich
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Court considered an appeal from a district court order modifying a child custody decree. The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Eight Judicial District Court’s order. The Court affirmed the District Court’s order barring modification of certain child support arrearages. The Court reversed the District Court’s award of primary physical custody to the child’s nonparty grandparents.
Manuela H. V. The Eight Judicial District Court Of Nevada, In And For The County Of Clark; And The Honorable Robert Teuton And The State Of Nevada, 132 Nev., Adv. Op. 1 (Jan 7, 2016), Audra Powell
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The court held that in an abuse and neglect case, when the district court establishes a case plan which includes an action step not related to a specific allegation in the abuse and neglect petition, the court must make “specific factual findings that justify the action step with which the parent must comply.” In the present case, the district court did not make such findings as to its requirement that petitioner, Manuela H., submit to drug testing, thus the supreme court granted her petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s order.
Anderson V. Sanchez 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Apr. 28 2016), Cassandra Ramey
Anderson V. Sanchez 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Apr. 28 2016), Cassandra Ramey
Nevada Supreme Court Summaries
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that the doctrine of mutual mistake is not grounds for rescission of a contract when the party bears the risk of mistake. The party bears the risk of mistake if the party is aware at the time of the formation of the contract that they only have limited knowledge of the facts to which the mistake relates, but treats that knowledge as sufficient, the court will allocate the risk of mistake to that party.