Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that Respondent was conclusively presumed to be the child's legal father based on positive DNA test results and that his status as such gave him rights incident to a parent-child relationship, holding that there was no error.After determining that Respondent was the biological father of the child at issue the court entered a child custody decision awarding Respondent joint physical custody with the child's mother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly interpreted and applied the Nevada Parentage Act (NPA), Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 126, in concluding that Respondent was conclusively presumed to be the child's legal father based on the DNA test results; and (2) the district court's order establishing joint physical custody comported and the evidence and the preferences set forth in Nev. Rev. Stat. Chapter 125C. View "Martinez v. Avila, Jr." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court awarding retroactive child support in a paternity action initiated after the child reached the age of majority, holding that the three-year statute of limitations to bring a paternity action after the child reaches the age of majority applies to a parent's request for retroactive child support.Mother and Father had one child together. More than one year after the child turned eighteen, Mother filed a paternity action against Father in order to seek back child support. Mother asked the district court to recognize the parties' previous agreement for $400 per month under Nev. Rev. Stat. 126.900(1) and alternatively argued that, even absent an agreement, she was entitled to retroactive child support. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Mother's request for retroactive child support was timely; (2) because Mother was permitted to seek retroactive child support the district court abused its discretion by concluding that it did not have the authority to grant relief; and (3) because Father did not make a promise in writing to make monthly support payments, the district court correctly denied Mother's section 126.900(1) claim. View "Hargrove v. Ward" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting Mother's motion to relocate the parties' minor child, M.M., to Virginia, holding that the district court followed the correct procedures.Mother moved to relocate with M.M. to Virginia Beach, Virginia because her husband was required to relocate for work there and Father would not consent to the relocation. The district court granted Mother's motion. At issue on appeal was the correct interpretation of the best interests provision of Nevada's child relocation statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.007(1)(b), including the application of the custody best interests factors as well as the applicable burden of proof necessary to satisfy section 125C.007(1). The Supreme Court held (1) Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.007(1)(b) requires the district court to make specific findings that relocation would be in the best interests of the child, which should include the custody best interest factors, and tie those findings to its conclusion; and (2) the applicable burden of proof for the threshold test is preponderance of the evidence. View "Monahan v. Hogan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Father's motion to modify the parties' physical custody designation and Father's child support obligation, holding that the new child support guidelines alone did not constitute a change in circumstances necessary to support a motion to modify a child support obligation.When the parties divorced, they agreed upon joint physical custody of their children. Father later filed a motion requesting that the court modify the order to reflect the parties' actual arrangement and to modify the child support obligations. The district court denied the motion, concluding that there was no change in circumstances that warranted modifying custody. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that there was no change in circumstances that warranted modifying the child custody arrangement. View "Romano v. Romano" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that divorce jurisdiction requires mere residence - not domicile - and that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction in this case under Nev. Rev. Stat. 125.020.Appellant and Respondent married in Saudi Arabia. In 2018, Respondent obtained a student visa and moved to Las Vegas. In 2020, Appellant and the child obtained dependent visas and also moved to Las Vegas. Two months later, Appellant filed a complaint for divorce. Respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Appellant could not establish domicile - or intent to remain in Nevada - so that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under section 125.020. The district court granted the motion, finding that, because residence is synonymous with domicile under section 125.020 and neither party had established domicile as a matter of law, dismissal was necessary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under section 125.020, residence means mere residence - not domicile - and Nev. Rev. Stat. 10.155 defines residence as physical presence; and (2) because Appellant had been physically present in Nevada for at least six weeks before she filed her divorce complaint, the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under 125.020. View "Senjab v. Alhulaibi" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting a motion to modify a divorce decree under Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), holding that Rule 60(b)(6) relief was inappropriate in this case.Rule 60(b)(6) allows for relief from a judgment for any justifiable reason besides those otherwise listed specifically in that rule. Your years Appellee moved for relief from the divorce decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) and to modify the decree, arguing that Appellant fraudulently induced her into signing the parties' marital settlement agreement (MSA), which was merged into the divorce decree. The district court modified the decree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the divorce decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), as Appellee's assertions sounded in Rule 60(b)(1) or (3) and Rule 60(b)(6) applies in extraordinary circumstances not address in Rules 60(b)(1)-(5). View "Byrd v. Byrd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying a guardianship petition, holding that the petition did not demonstrate that the proposed protected person was incapacitated.Appellant filed a petition for appointment of temporary guardian and to establish a general permanent guardianship over his mother, Respondent, and her estate. The district court denied the petition without prejudice, finding that, under Nev. Rev. Stat. 159.044(2)(i), a guardianship over an adult proposed protected person cannot be granted without a physician's certificate. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) a certificate from a physician or a qualified individual demonstrating need for a guardianship is required for the district court to consider a petition for adult guardianship, but the certificate need not be based on an in-person examination of the proposed protected person; (2) whether the petition and certificate warrant the need for a guardianship or further proceedings is within the district court's discretion; and (3) the district court did not err in dismissing the guardianship petition because the petition did not demonstrate that Appellant's mother was incapacitated. View "In re Guardianship of Rubin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that the juvenile court lacked authority to appoint a master to preside over the trial in the termination of parental rights (TPR) proceeding.At issue whether having a hearing master preside over trial in a TPR proceeding satisfies the due process requirements in the Nevada Constitution. The Supreme Court held (1) due process requires the TPR trial to be heard before a district judge in the first instance; and (2) a hearing master cannot preside over a TPR trial pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B without infringing on a parent's constitutional right to procedural due process. The Court remanded the case for a new TPR proceeding. View "In re Parental Rights as to L.L.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Appellant's parental rights, holding that the district court's failure to apply Nev. R. Civ. P. 16.2(e)(4)'s mandate regarding disclosure of witnesses was harmless error.The State sought to terminate Appellant's parental rights, but the State did not disclose a nonexpert witness until after the trial had commenced. The district court, however, allowed the witness to testify at trial on the grounds that the nonexpert witness disclosure requirements in Rule 16.2(e)(4) do not apply to termination of parental rights proceedings. The district court ultimately terminated Appellant's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the nonexpert witness notice requirements in Nev. R. Civ. P. 16.2 apply to termination of parental rights proceedings; and (2) the district court erred by denying Appellant's motion in liming to exclude an unnoticed nonexpert witness during trial, but the error was harmless. View "In re Parental Rights as to T.M.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the provision in Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.006(1)(b) that a custodial parent who intends to relocate his or her residence to a place outside of the State and desires to take the child but the noncustodial parent refuses to consent to relocation must first petition the district court applies not only to relocation from Nevada to a place outside of Nevada but also from a place outside of Nevada to another place outside of Nevada.Mother was granted primary physical custody of the parties' three minor children after the parties' divorce. Mother later filed a petition under section 125C.006 for permission to relocate with the children from Nevada to Arizona. Mother subsequently moved to Arizona with the children. Mother later petitioned for permission to again relocate with the children, this time from Arizona to Ohio. The district court granted the petition, concluding that Mother did not need permission for the current relocation because the court had already granted her permission to move from Nevada. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because Mother sought to move with the children to Ohio and Father did not consent, section 125C.006(1)(b) applied; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by failing to issue specific findings under the factors set out in Nev. Rev. Stat. 125C.007. View "Pelkola v. Pelkola" on Justia Law