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

Family Law Commons™

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

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

Discipline
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 31 - 60 of 148

Full-Text Articles in Family Law

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

Davidson V. Davidson, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 71 (Sept. 29, 2016), Hunter Davidson Sep 2016

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.”

Go to article

Kar V. Kar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (August 12, 2016), Briana Martinez Aug 2016

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.

Go to article

Harrison V. Harrison, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (Jul. 28, 2016), Douglas H. Smith Jul 2016

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 …

Go to article

Lewis V. Lewis, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (June 30, 2016), Paul George Jun 2016

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.

Go to article

Valdez V. Aguilar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (May 26, 2016), Kory Koerperich May 2016

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.

Go to article

State V. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 33 (April 28, 2016), Audra Powell Apr 2016

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.

Go to article

In Re Parental Rights As To M.F., 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 19 (Mar. 31, 2016), Shannon Diaz Mar 2016

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.

Go to article

Micone V. Micone, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (March 3, 2016), Ronni Boskovich Mar 2016

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.

Go to article

Biology, Genetics, Nurture, And The Law: The Expansion Of The Legal Definition Of Family To Include Three Or More Parents, Myrisha S. Lewis Mar 2016

Biology, Genetics, Nurture, And The Law: The Expansion Of The Legal Definition Of Family To Include Three Or More Parents, Myrisha S. Lewis

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Go to article

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 Jan 2016

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.

Go to article

Is Gay The New Asian?: Marriage Equality And The Dawn Of A New Model Minority, Stewart Chang Jan 2016

Is Gay The New Asian?: Marriage Equality And The Dawn Of A New Model Minority, Stewart Chang

Scholarly Works

In this Article, Professor Chang analyzes the historic role of family in the politics of exclusion in the United States, evaluates the ways in which the stereotyping of Asian Americans as a model minority has perpetuated these politics, and warns against the possibility of a similar fate for gay and lesbian Americans. As a model minority, Asian Americans have been set as a standard against which other minority groups, particularly African Americans, are measured. Around the same time Asians were being extolled for their hard work and family values, Congress released the Moynihan report on the problem of broken families …

Go to article

From Victims To Litigants, Elizabeth L. Macdowell Jan 2016

From Victims To Litigants, Elizabeth L. Macdowell

Scholarly Works

This Article reports findings from an ethnographic study of self-help programs in two western states. The study investigated how self-help assistance provided by partnerships between courts and nongovernmental organizations implicates advocacy and access to justice for domestic violence survivors. The primary finding is that self-help programs may inadvertently work to curtail, rather than expand, advocacy resources. Furthermore, problems identified with self-help service delivery and negative impacts on advocacy systems may be explained by the structure of work within self-help programs and the nature of partnerships to provide self-help services. The Author uncovers previously unseen impacts of self-help programs on survivors …

Go to article

Subsidized Egg Freezing In Employment: Autonomy, Coercion, Or Discrimination?, Ann C. Mcginley Jan 2016

Subsidized Egg Freezing In Employment: Autonomy, Coercion, Or Discrimination?, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

In 2014, Apple and Facebook announced that they would provide up to $20,000 for female employees to freeze their eggs as an employment benefit. These announcements raised mixed reviews. Some applauded the decision because they believe that egg freezing may offer to women more control over their reproductive choices. Others argued that the new benefit sends the wrong message to women and that encouraging good parenting by giving better parental leave and child care policies would be more beneficial to families. Others were concerned that this “benefit” applies only to professional or managerial-class women, but may not be helpful to …

Go to article

Anderson V. Sanchez 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 34 (Apr. 28 2016), Cassandra Ramey Jan 2016

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.

Go to article

Griffith V. Gonzales-Alpizar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (May 26, 2016), Michael Hua Jan 2016

Griffith V. Gonzales-Alpizar, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 38 (May 26, 2016), Michael Hua

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that under NRS 125.040, a district court has the power to grant attorney fees pendente lite for appeals in divorce actions.

Go to article

Schofield V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Apr. 21, 2016), Kristian Kaskla Jan 2016

Schofield V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 26 (Apr. 21, 2016), Kristian Kaskla

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that (1) Nevada’s first-degree kidnapping statute NRS 200.310(1)'s "intent to keep" language is ambiguous; (2) NRS 200.310(1) requires proof that the accused intended to keep the minor for a protracted period of time or permanently; and (3) reversal is warranted because there is insufficient evidence to support appellant's first-degree kidnapping conviction under the proper legal standard.

Go to article

In Re Guardianship Of Hailu, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Nov. 16, 2015), Adrienne Brantley Nov 2015

In Re Guardianship Of Hailu, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Nov. 16, 2015), Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that under NRS § 451.007 (the Uniform Determination of Death Act) the District court failed to consider whether the American Association of Neurology (AAN) guidelines adequately measure all functions of the entire brain and whether the guidelines are considered accepted medical standards by states that have adopted the Act.

Go to article

In Re Guardianship Of N.M., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (September 24, 2015), Daniel Ormsby Sep 2015

In Re Guardianship Of N.M., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 75 (September 24, 2015), Daniel Ormsby

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court heard an appeal from a parent-appellant challenging a district court’s exercise of temporary emergency jurisdiction to appoint a temporary, non-parent, guardian and general, non-parent, guardian. Affirmed.

Go to article

Joanna T. V. Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep 24, 2015), Audra Powell Sep 2015

Joanna T. V. Nevada, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Sep 24, 2015), Audra Powell

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The court considered whether NRCP 4(i)’s 120 day requirement for service of a summons applied to cases filed under NRS § 432B, for protection of children from neglect and abuse. The court held that the 120 day requirement does not apply to cases filed under 432B and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus to order the juvenile court to dismiss an abuse-and-neglect petition on that premise.

Go to article

In Re Parental Rights As To A.P.M., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Sept. 10, 2015), Douglas H. Smith Sep 2015

In Re Parental Rights As To A.P.M., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Sept. 10, 2015), Douglas H. Smith

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

On appeal from an order for termination of parental rights, the Nevada Supreme Court held, by a vote of 4-2, that (1) the district court may terminate parental rights notwithstanding a completed case plan for reunification if the decision is otherwise warranted under NRS §128.105; that (2) the court need not wait a full 20 months to apply the statutory presumptions of NRS §128.109(1)(a) and NRS §128.109(2) if a child has been removed from his or her parents’ home pursuant to Chapter 32B for at least 14 months of any consecutive 20-month period; and that (3) upon application of these …

Go to article

No Money, No Lawyer — No Children: The Right To Counsel For Indigent Defendants In Nevada Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings, Erik J. Foley Sep 2015

No Money, No Lawyer — No Children: The Right To Counsel For Indigent Defendants In Nevada Termination Of Parental Rights Proceedings, Erik J. Foley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Summary Of Beau Davis V. Andrea Ewalefo, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (July 02, 2015), Daven Cameron Jul 2015

Summary Of Beau Davis V. Andrea Ewalefo, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (July 02, 2015), Daven Cameron

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

On appeal from a child custody decree, the Court found the District Court did not have specific findings of fact to support the restriction of travel and visitation outside of the United States and its territories. The Court granted en banc reconsideration, reversed and remanded the case for further fact finding considerations concerning whether the minor child can safely travel overseas for parental visitation.

Go to article

Summary Of Jennifer L. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (Jun. 04, 2015), Jaymes Orr Jun 2015

Summary Of Jennifer L. V. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (Jun. 04, 2015), Jaymes Orr

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that, although a legal guardianship had been established, and a parent had neither legal nor physical custody of a child, parents are not relived of their parental duties to provide for the care, support, or maintenance of the child.

Go to article

Summary Of Bluestein V. Bluestein, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (Mar. 26, 2015), Ashleigh Wise Mar 2015

Summary Of Bluestein V. Bluestein, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (Mar. 26, 2015), Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held a district court has the authority to review and modify a custodial agreement once either party makes a modification request. When modifying a custodial agreement, however, the district court must primarily look for the child’s best interest.

Go to article

Summary Of Bluestein V. Bluestein, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (Mar. 26, 2015), Ashleigh Wise Mar 2015

Summary Of Bluestein V. Bluestein, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (Mar. 26, 2015), Ashleigh Wise

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held a district court has the authority to review and modify a custodial agreement once either party makes a modification request. When modifying a custodial agreement, however, the district court must primarily look for the child’s best interest.

Go to article

Separated At Adoption: Addressing The Challenges Of Maintaining Sibling-Of-Origin Bonds In Post-Adoption Families, Rebecca L. Scharf Jan 2015

Separated At Adoption: Addressing The Challenges Of Maintaining Sibling-Of-Origin Bonds In Post-Adoption Families, Rebecca L. Scharf

Scholarly Works

This Article explores the ways children, many of whom are in foster care, are psychologically harmed by the law’s failure to ensure that the bonds they have with their siblings-of-origin are not permanently broken when one of the siblings is adopted; it therefore proposes ways that courts can better protect children from the psychological harm of having a biological sibling permanently removed from their life. It suggests that what is needed is a framework that allows visitation by biological siblings with whom children have formed attachments without unnecessarily intruding on the fundamental liberty interest of the adoptive parents at issue …

Go to article

First Prev Next Last