Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Clark County Department of Family Services (DFS) filed a petition for protective custody of C.B. and A.L., two minor children, alleging that Mother had either physically abused or negligently supervised C.B., whose face had been burned. The hearing master recommended sustaining the abuse and neglect petition on the ground that Mother had physically abused C.B. The juvenile court affirmed the hearing master’s recommendation, concluding that the injury was not accidental. After a trial, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights as to the two children. The court relied on the hearing master’s findings, as affirmed by the juvenile court, that Mother was at fault for C.B.’s injuries and that the injuries were nonaccidental. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) DFS conceded error on the issue of the district court’s reliance on the juvenile court’s determination that C.B.’s injury was caused by Mother; and (2) since the finding of intentional abuse was based on a concededly improper failure to admit evidence rebutting a statutory presumption, a new trial was required to determine Mother’s parental rights. View "In re Parental Rights as to A.L." on Justia Law

When Husband and Wife divorced, the district court entered a divorce decree allocating Wife a community property interest in Husband’s Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. The district court later entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) giving Wife a survivor beneficiary interest in Husband’s PERS pension. Husband filed a motion to modify the QDRO, arguing the QDRO did not effectuate the division in the divorce decree. Wife moved for a judgment awarding her the community property pension payments she could have received since the time Husband became eligible to retire. The district court granted Husband’s motion to modify the QDRO and denied Wife’s motion for judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) unless specifically set forth in the divorce decree, an allocation of a community property interest in the employee spouse’s pension plan does not also entitle the nonemployee spouse to survivor benefits; and (2) the nonemployee spouse must first file a motion requesting immediate receipt of his or her portion of the community property interest in the employee spouse’s pension benefits. View "Henson v. Henson" on Justia Law

After Appellant was arrested for child abuse his daughter was placed in the custody of Washoe County Social Services (Social Services). The family court ordered Appellant to pay child support to Social Services. After Appellant pleaded guilty to one felony count of child abuse, Social Services sought restitution. Appellant objected to the amount sought by Social Services on the grounds that the family court had already entered a cost-of-care order. The district court ordered Appellant to pay restitution to Social Services, concluding that the family court’s order, which was based on Appellant’s ability to pay, did not affect the jurisdiction of the district court as to its criminal restitution order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court has jurisdiction to impose restitution to the State for the cost of child care in child abuse cases where the family court has already imposed an obligation on the defendant for the costs of supporting the child, but the district court must offset the restitution amount by the amount of the support obligation imposed by the family court. View "Major v. State" on Justia Law

Mother and Father divorced in Nevada pursuant to a decree that granted Mother custody of the parents’ two children and ordered Father to pay Mother child support. Father later relocated to Hawaii and ceased making child support payments. Thereafter, the Hawaii court issued an administrative order that continued the Nevada child support order. The Hawaii court later entered an order reducing Father’s child support obligation. After the children reached the age of majority, Mother filed a motion requesting the Nevada district court to determine that the Nevada child support order was controlling and for a judgment of arrears. The Nevada court concluded that it had lost jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act applies retroactively; and (2) Nevada had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over this child support matter under the Act because Mother and the children continuously resided in Nevada and the parents did not consent to the assumption of jurisdiction over and modification of the order by the Hawaii court. View "Holdaway-Foster v. Brunell" on Justia Law

The parties in this case were unmarried parents of one child. Father established himself as the child’s father with to a written acknowledgment of paternity. After Mother relocated with the child to California without Father’s consent or knowledge, Father filed a motion for the child’s return and for an award of primary custody. The district court awarded Mother primary physical custody of the child and allowed the child to remain with her in California. In making its determination, the court concluded that because the couple did not have a judicial child custody order, Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.200, the statute governing relocation by an established custodial parent, was inapplicable in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) unmarried parents have equal custody rights regarding their child absent a judicial custody order to the contrary; (2) the district court did not err in finding section 125C.200 was inapplicable in this case; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody and approving her relocation with the child to California based on its determination that Mother had a “good faith” reason for the move and that living with Mother in California was in the child’s best interest. View "Druckman v. Ruscitti" on Justia Law

Catherine Doan and Craig Doan divorced in 2003. The divorce decree did not include Craig’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) retirement benefit despite the fact that the retirement benefit was disclosed and discussed during the divorce proceedings. In 2009, Catherine filed a motion for division of an omitted asset after her attorney discovered that she was not receiving Craig’s FAA retirement benefits. The district court modified the final decree of divorce, concluding that Craig’s retirement benefits were omitted from the divorce decree because of a mutual mistake. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) an ex-spouse who does not file a motion for relief from a divorce decree within the six month period under Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b) is not entitled to partition absent exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief; and (2) under the facts of this case, Catherine was not entitled to equitable relief because the retirement benefit was adjudicated in the divorce proceedings. View "Doan v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

Husband and Wife had four children when Wife filed a complaint for divorce. During the trial proceedings, Wife, who was representing herself, failed to comply with several of Husband's discovery requests. Subsequently, the district court concluded that discovery sanctions were warranted and entered a default divorce decree. The decree awarded the parties joint legal and joint physical custody of the children, set forth child support, and divided the parties' community assets and liabilities. The Supreme Court reversed the default divorce decree, holding (1) it is not permissible to resolve child custody and child support claims by default as a sanction for discovery violations; (2) as for division of community property and debt, a court must make an equal disposition as statutorily required before entering a default; and (3) regarding all other claims, a court must first make a through evaluation and express findings of whether less severe sanctions are appropriate, which the court did not do in this case. Remanded. View "Blanco v. Blanco" on Justia Law

Sha'Kayla St. Mary and Veronica Damon became romantically involved and decided to have a child together. The couple subsequently drafted a co-parenting agreement. Using Damon's egg and an anonymous donor's sperm, St. Mary gave birth to a child through in vitro fertilization. After their relationship ended, the parties disputed who had custodial rights over the child. The district court (1) concluded that St. Mary was a mere surrogate and therefore not a parent entitled to any custodial rights; and (2) refused to uphold the parties' co-parenting agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in determining that St. Mary was a surrogate lacking any legal rights to parent the child without holding an evidentiary hearing on that issue; and (2) the parties' co-parenting agreement was not void as unlawful or against public policy, and therefore, the district court abused its discretion in deeming the agreement unenforceable. View " St. Mary v. Damon" on Justia Law

Geanie and Kevin were married by newly elected district court judge Bryce Duckworth. Although Duckworth had sworn his oath of office four days earlier, he was not authorized to take the bench for another several days. After Geanie filed for divorce from Kevin three years later, the district court dismissed the divorce complaint as moot, concluding there was no valid marriage because Duckworth did not have the authority to solemnize the marriage until his term actually started. Geanie did not appeal the district court's dismissal order. One year later, Geanie filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the district court's order. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Geanie's failure to timely challenge the district court's order by appeal or otherwise precluded writ relief. View "Bradford v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Appellant hired Law Firm to represent him in a divorce action. After a post-decree dispute, Appellant paid Law Firm for the firm's work through entry of the final decree but did not pay Law Firm the fees it charged to litigate the post-decree dispute. The district court granted Law Firm's post-decree motion to adjudicate and enforce a charging lien for unpaid attorney fees pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 18.015, entering personal judgment against Appellant. Under section 18.015(3), a charging lien only attaches to a decree and to money recovered on account of the action from the time of service of the notices. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Law Firm did not serve the statutory notices required to perfect its lien until the case was over and the decree had already become final, and because no prospect of post-perfection recovery appeared, the lien should not have been adjudicated under section 18.015. View " Leventhal v. Black & LoBello" on Justia Law