Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law

Family Law

2017

Articles 1 - 13 of 13

Full-Text Articles in Law

Arcella V. Arcella, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 104 (Dec. 26, 2017), Shannon Zahm Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

In Re Parental Rights As To T.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 97 (Dec. 7, 2017), Steven Kish Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

Abid V. Abid, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 94 (Dec. 7, 2017) (En Banc), Carmen Gilbert Dec 2017

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.

Go to article

Yu V. Yu, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 90 (Nov. 22, 2017), Samantha Scofield Nov 2017

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.

Go to article

In Re Parental Rights As To A.D.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 72 (Oct. 5, 2017), Alexis Wendl Oct 2017

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).

Go to article

Gordon V. Geiger, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 69 (Sept. 27, 2017), Rex Martinez Sep 2017

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.

Go to article

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 Jun 2017

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 …

Go to article

Vaile V. Porsboll, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (June 22, 2017), Stephanie Glantz Jun 2017

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.

Go to article

Nguyen V. Boynes, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (June 22, 2017), Angela Lee Jun 2017

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.

Go to article

Klabacka V. Nelson, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 24 (May 25, 2017), Christopher Kelly May 2017

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 …

Go to article

In Re Parental Rights As To M.M.L., 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (May 11, 2017), Hayley Cummings May 2017

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.

Go to article

Petit V. Adrianzen, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 15 (Apr. 13, 2017), Skyler Sullivan Apr 2017

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.

Go to article

Racial Anxieties In Adoption: Reflections On Adoptive Couple, White Parenthood, And Constitutional Challenges To The Icwa, Addie C. Rolnick Jan 2017

Racial Anxieties In Adoption: Reflections On Adoptive Couple, White Parenthood, And Constitutional Challenges To The Icwa, Addie C. Rolnick

Scholarly Works

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is under fire from people who argue that it interferes with adoptions and violates the constitution by doing so. The current crop of lawsuits is an outgrowth of a 2012 case in which the Supreme Court heard its second-ever challenge to the law. While the Court sidestepped the most far-reaching anti-ICWA arguments, the majority opinion evidenced a deep skepticism about the law. This skepticism led the Court to narrow the law’s application so that it didn’t apply to the family involved, and it seemed to invite further challenges to the law.

Go to article