SCHOENWALD VS. TARANTELLI (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

• -The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Tarantelli sole legal and primary physical custody, because its evaluation of the NRS 125C.0035(4) best interest factors was supported by substantial evidence and adequately explained.
• -Preponderance of the evidence is the standard when evaluating domestic violence as a best interest factor in a custody determination, and the district court's finding that domestic violence was not proven was supported by substantial evidence.
• -Credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence are functions of the trier of fact, and the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or reevaluate witness credibility on appeal.
• -Substantial evidence supported the $320 monthly child support obligation calculated under NAC 425.140(1)(a) from Schoenwald's most recently filed FDF, which he testified was accurate.
• -A party seeking to modify child support bears the burden of showing a change in circumstances since entry of the order and that modification is in the child's best interest, and Schoenwald failed to meet that burden.
• -Schoenwald's due process rights were satisfied where he received notice, an opportunity to be heard, equal time to present evidence, and the ability to file motions and exhibits.
• -Rulings made during official judicial proceedings generally do not establish grounds for disqualification absent an extrajudicial source or a showing of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism making fair judgment impossible.

Practitioner summary

**Standard of review.** The court reviewed the custody and child support determinations for abuse of discretion. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007); Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 7, 501 P.3d 980, 985 (2022). An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision "is not supported by substantial evidence or is clearly erroneous." Bautista v. Picone, 134 Nev. 334, 336, 419 P.3d 157, 159 (2018). Factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence - "evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. Constitutional challenges were reviewed de novo. Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007). **Physical custody framework.** The sole consideration in a custody determination is the best interest of the child. NRS 125C.0035(1); Ellis. The district court must consider all twelve factors in NRS 125C.0035(4), and a written custody decree must contain findings on those factors and tie them to the ultimate determination. Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 450-51, 352 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015). The court noted the statutory preference that joint physical custody is in a child's best interest if certain conditions are met, NRS 125C.0025(1), and that joint physical custody is the arrangement a district court must consider first, with findings required when imposing an alternative. Roe v. Roe, 139 Nev. 163, 173, 535 P.3d 274, 286 (Ct. App. 2023). **Application - custody.** The court found the district court's findings were supported by substantial evidence. Specific findings included: the frequent associations factor favored Tarantelli because Schoenwald withheld the child for nearly six months and continued to exert dominance (NRS 125C.0035(4)(c)); the level of conflict factor favored Tarantelli as conflict primarily originated with Schoenwald (NRS 125C.0035(4)(d)); the physical, developmental, and emotional needs factor favored Tarantelli in light of Schoenwald's controlling behavior (NRS 125C.0035(4)(g)); and certain factors favored neither party (NRS 125C.0035(4)(e), (f), (h)). The abuse/neglect and domestic violence factors were found inapplicable based on Schoenwald's lack of credibility and insufficient evidence. The district court applied the preponderance of the evidence standard to domestic violence as a best interest factor. Soldo-Allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 565 P.3d 842, 845 (Ct. App. 2025); cf. NRS 33.018(1). Credibility determinations and the weighing of evidence are left to the trier of fact, and the appellate court does not reweigh. Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 365-66, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009); In re J.D.N., 128 Nev. 462, 477, 283 P.3d 842, 852 (2012). **Child support framework and application.** Parents have a duty to provide necessary maintenance, health care, education, and support. NRS 125B.020(1). A physical custodian may recover from the noncustodial parent a reasonable portion of the cost of care. NRS 125B.030. The NAC provides the base support formula, NAC 425.140, with adjustments available under eight enumerated factors, NAC 425.150(1). For one child, the obligation is 16 percent of the first $6,000 of gross monthly income. NAC 425.140(1)(a). The district court calculated the $320 obligation from Schoenwald's November 2024 FDF reporting $2,000 monthly income, which he testified was accurate. He did not request an adjustment under NAC 425.150 beyond asserting reduced income, and his pretrial memorandum requested the statutory formula and stated his FDF was accurate. The court found substantial evidence supported the award. Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120, 125, 412 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2018). **Motion to modify.** A district court may modify a support order only on a finding of "a change in circumstances since the entry of the order and the modification is in the best interest of the child." Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 431, 216 P.3d 218, 228 (2009). Modification remains discretionary even where changed circumstances are found. Id. at 432, 216 P.3d at 228. NRS 125B.145(4) mandates review when the obligor experiences a 20-percent change in gross monthly income. Backman v. Gelbman, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 8, 565 P.3d 330, 331-32 (Ct. App. 2025). The court held Schoenwald failed to meet his burden: he did not explain why his income decreased since the decree or how circumstances changed after testifying his FDF was accurate and that he voluntarily worked one day per week, and the check stubs attached to his new FDF showed no employer, pay period, or other indicia of legitimacy. Rivero, 125 Nev. at 430-31, 216 P.3d at 227-28. **Due process.** Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Callie, 123 Nev. at 183, 160 P.3d at 879; Mesi v. Mesi, 136 Nev. 748, 750, 478 P.3d 366, 369 (2020). District courts have broad discretion over the form of evidentiary hearings. Arcella v. Arcella, 133 Nev. 868, 872, 407 P.3d 341, 346 (2017). The court found Schoenwald fully participated, received equal time to present evidence, and filed numerous motions and exhibits, so his rights were satisfied. **Bias.** Unless an alleged bias originates in an extrajudicial source, disqualification is unwarranted absent a showing that the judge formed an opinion reflecting "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022); In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988). The burden is on the party asserting bias. Rivero, 125 Nev. at 439, 216 P.3d at 233. Schoenwald did not meet that burden.

In plain language

Alexander Schoenwald and Krista Tarantelli were never married but had one child together, born in December 2022. In August 2024, Tarantelli went to court asking for sole legal and primary physical custody. Schoenwald responded and asked for sole legal and physical custody himself. According to the opinion, after an alleged domestic violence incident, Schoenwald kept the child away from Tarantelli for several months even though no court order prevented her from seeing the child. After a lot of back-and-forth motions, the district court set up a temporary arrangement where the parents shared joint physical custody. The case then went to an evidentiary hearing - a trial-like proceeding where both sides testified and presented evidence. After weighing the legally required "best interest" factors, the judge awarded Tarantelli sole legal and primary physical custody. The judge also ordered Schoenwald to pay $320 per month in child support, calculated from his most recent financial disclosure form (a document reporting income). Eleven days after the custody decree was entered, Schoenwald filed a motion to lower his child support, claiming his income had dropped by more than 20 percent. Tarantelli opposed it, and the district court denied the request. Schoenwald then appealed. On appeal, Schoenwald made several arguments. He said the district court did not properly analyze the best interest factors, especially the domestic violence factor, and ignored his evidence. The appeals court explained that it reviews custody decisions only for "abuse of discretion" - meaning it does not redo the case, but checks whether the lower court's decision was supported by adequate evidence. The court found the district court had carefully considered the required factors. Among other things, the district court found that Schoenwald's withholding of the child for nearly six months and his controlling behavior toward Tarantelli weighed in her favor, and that he had not proven domestic violence happened. The district court found Tarantelli credible and Schoenwald not credible. The appeals court emphasized that deciding who is believable and how much weight evidence carries is the trial judge's job, not the appellate court's - so it would not second-guess those findings. On child support, the appeals court found the $320 figure matched the state formula (16 percent of the first $6,000 of monthly income for one child), based on Schoenwald's own financial disclosure reporting $2,000 in monthly income - a form he had testified was accurate. The court noted he only claimed to earn less after learning he would owe support, and that he had voluntarily cut his work schedule from five days a week to one. His request to lower his support was denied because he did not adequately explain the change in income or why a reduction would be in the child's best interest, and because the check stubs he submitted did not show an employer, pay period, or other signs that they were legitimate. Finally, the court rejected Schoenwald's claims that he was denied due process (a fair chance to be heard) and that the judge was biased. The court found he fully participated, had the same amount of time as Tarantelli to present evidence, and filed numerous motions and exhibits. It also found no evidence that the judge's rulings came from outside knowledge or reflected the kind of deep-seated hostility that would make fair judgment impossible. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in full.

Counsel of record

Counsel is shown when the opinion or the court's docket names it.