STEVENS VS. LANEY (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

• -Under NRS 125A.475(2), a Nevada court "shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify except in accordance with NRS 125A.305 to 125A.395, inclusive, a registered child custody determination of a court of another state," and may decline enforcement only where the foreign order was summarily issued without the rendering state's required substantive findings.
• -Kayden's Law (NRS 125C.243), which contains no retroactive command, does not reach enforcement of a reunification obligation fixed by a 2021 stipulated California judgment, particularly where the Nevada custody order included no requirement for further reunification therapy.
• -A reunification therapist's incremental, court-supervised adjustments to parenting time implementing a stipulated reunification directive constitute therapeutic progress rather than a prohibited delegation of custodial decision-making authority.
• -A validly issued order to show cause is not shown to be extinguished when its noticed hearing date is continued or vacated, and the NRS 22.030(3) different-judge protection applies only upon a timely objection by the person charged.
• -A contempt sanction containing a true purge opportunity - here, avoiding a 25-day jail sentence by paying a $500 fine, complying with court orders, and paying contempt-related attorney fees - is civil in character.
• -Achieved reunification restoring a previously severed parent-child relationship is a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child under the Ellis-Romano two-prong modification framework.
• -Consistent with Sims, parental misconduct may be considered in a custody modification only insofar as it speaks to the statutory best-interest factors, not as punishment.
• -An attorney fees and costs award entered after the notice of appeal is a special order after final judgment that must be separately appealed under NRAP 3A(b); absent a separate notice of appeal, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review it.

Practitioner summary

**Enforcement of the stipulated California judgment / Kayden's Law.** The court identified a dual inquiry: whether Kayden's Law impacted the custody order (a legal question) and whether the reunification-related findings were supported by substantial evidence. On the legal question, the court anchored its analysis in NRS 125C.0035(1) (best interest as the sole consideration), Lewis v. Lewis, 53 Nev. 398, 2 P.2d 131 (1931) (courts retain discretion over stipulations), St. Mary v. Damon, 129 Nev. 647, 309 P.3d 1027 (2013) (fit parents' custody stipulations presumed in the child's best interest), and NRS 125A.475(2) (Nevada courts "shall recognize and enforce, but may not modify except in accordance with NRS 125A.305 to 125A.395, inclusive, a registered child custody determination of a court of another state"). Under Ferguson v. Krepper, 83 Nev. 408, 482 P.2d 668 (1967), enforcement may be declined only where the foreign order was summarily issued without the rendering state's required substantive findings; here, the California court's approval of the reunification stipulation satisfied the best-interest inquiry under St. Mary's presumption. As to Kayden's Law (NRS 125C.243; 2025 Nev. Stat., ch. 414 § 5.1(a)), the court invoked the presumption of prospective application from Pub. Emps.' Benefits Program v. LVMPD, 124 Nev. 138, 179 P.3d 542 (2008): the statute constrains a district court's issuance of reunification-therapy orders, but the reunification obligation originated in the 2021 California judgment and the Nevada custody order required no further therapy; retroactive application "would impair settled expectations." Preservation doctrines reinforced the result: Stevens never raised Kayden's Law below (Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 623 P.2d 981 (1981)), conceded registration through counsel's statement "I think that you are safe" (invited error, Eivazi v. Hivazi, 139 Nev. 408, 537 P.3d 476 (Ct. App. 2023); Chadwick v. State, 140 Nev. 104, 546 P.3d 215 (Ct. App. 2024)), and raised the "ongoing reunification" theory for the first time in her reply brief (Weaver v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 494, 117 P.3d 193 (2005); NRAP 28(c); Detwiler v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 137 Nev. 202, 486 P.3d 710 (2021)). Dr. Wilburn's credited testimony supplied substantial evidence that reunification was achieved, and credibility is for the district court (Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 161 P.3d 239 (2007)).

**Delegation.** Applying Bautista v. Picone, 134 Nev. 334, 419 P.3d 157 (2018), Roe v. Roe, 139 Nev. 163, 535 P.3d 274 (Ct. App. 2023), and Harrison v. Harrison, 132 Nev. 564, 376 P.3d 173 (2016), the court reaffirmed that custodial-determination power cannot be delegated and that delegated authority must be limited to non-substantive matters. Here, the district court limited Dr. Wilburn's role to therapeutic services and retained final authority; her incremental parenting-time adjustments were "therapeutic progress rather than prohibited custody modification under the specific facts of this case," implementing the stipulated California judgment subject to the court's supervision. The delegation theory was also unpreserved, and Stevens's bias allegations against Dr. Wilburn were not cogently argued and sought impermissible reweighing (Ellis).

**Contempt.** Contempt is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with embedded legal questions de novo (Detwiler; Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 5 P.3d 569 (2000)). An NRS 22.030(2)-compliant affidavit is a jurisdictional prerequisite to indirect contempt (Awad v. Wright, 106 Nev. 407, 794 P.2d 713 (1990)). The district court proceeded only on the count whose supporting affidavit correctly cited the operative order; Stevens cited no authority that a validly issued OSC is extinguished when its hearing date is continued (Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 130 P.3d 1280 (2006)), and EDCR 5.509 suggests the opposite. The NRS 22.030(3) different-judge protection requires a timely objection (Detwiler), was not implicated because the trial judge did not issue the OSC (Awad), and NRS 22.030(3)(b) generally permits the issuing judge to preside in family court matters. On the merits, the May 2023 order satisfied Cunningham v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 102 Nev. 551, 729 P.2d 1328 (1986) ("spell[s] out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms"), and the sanction was civil because it contained a true purge opportunity (Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev. 453, 373 P.3d 878 (2016); Rodriguez v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 798, 102 P.3d 41 (2004); NRS 22.100).

**Custody modification.** Under Ellis and Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 501 P.3d 980 (2022), modification requires "(1) there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child, and (2) the child's best interest is served by the modification." Achieved reunification - the transformation from limited supervised contact to unsupervised extended contact and a therapeutically validated bond - was an express, non-conclusory substantial change. The district court made detailed factor-by-factor findings under NRS 125C.0035(4), finding factors (c), (d), (e), (g), and (j) strongly favored Laney and factor (i) favored Stevens. Consistent with Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 865 P.2d 328 (1993) (custody change may not be used "as a sword to punish parental misconduct"), the district court expressly stated the contempt finding "has no bearing on the custodial determination herein" and used the underlying conduct only as it bore on enumerated best-interest factors.

**Attorney fees and costs.** The custody order's fee ruling was not final because it contemplated further motion practice (Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 257 P.3d 396 (2011)); the later $15,000 award was a special order after final judgment, independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b) (Smith v. Crown Fin. Servs. of Am., 111 Nev. 277, 890 P.2d 769 (1995)). Because Stevens filed no separate notice of appeal from that order, the court lacked jurisdiction (Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987); Weddell v. Stewart, 127 Nev. 645, 261 P.3d 1080 (2011)) and dismissed that portion of the appeal.

**Reassignment.** Because the judgment was affirmed and remand unwarranted, the reassignment request was moot; in a footnote, the court added that adverse rulings alone do not establish bias (Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 506 P.3d 334 (2022)).

In plain language

Kimberly Stevens and Jefferson Laney divorced in Nevada in 2021, but because their children's "home state" at the time was California, custody was initially handled by a California court. In November 2021, the California court entered a judgment based on the parties' own agreement (a "stipulated judgment"): Stevens would have primary physical custody, and Laney and the children would participate in "reunification therapy" - counseling designed to repair a damaged parent-child relationship. Early reunification efforts in California failed, with therapists reporting that Stevens interfered with the process. The parties then jointly chose a new therapist, Dr. Donna Wilburn, and in May 2023 the Nevada district court took over the case after California gave up jurisdiction.

The Nevada court ordered daily video calls between Laney and the children and specified that the children "shall have privacy alone with [Laney] during video chats." Private investigators hired by Laney observed Stevens on several dates in May and June 2023 positioning herself and older siblings near the youngest child, A.L., during those calls - apparently out of Laney's view. After Laney registered the California judgment in Nevada, he sought a contempt finding. Following a two-day evidentiary hearing that began in January 2025, the district court held Stevens in contempt for the June 5 incident, imposing a 25-day jail sentence she could avoid ("purge") by paying a $500 fine, complying with court orders, and paying attorney fees related to the contempt litigation.

By the end of the hearing, reunification had largely succeeded. Dr. Wilburn testified that reunification had been achieved, that A.L. was enjoying extended time with Laney, and that a trauma assessment found no indications the children had been abused in either parent's care. The district court found Dr. Wilburn and Laney credible, found Stevens's testimony "inconsistent, evasive, and self-serving," and found that Stevens had engaged in "pathogenic parenting" - which Dr. Wilburn described as psychologically abusive parenting - that obstructed reunification. In August 2025, the court modified custody, awarding the parties joint physical and joint legal custody of A.L. on a week-on/week-off schedule (the relief Laney requested), and later awarded Laney $15,000 in attorney fees and costs.

On appeal, Stevens's lead argument was that the district court should have applied "Kayden's Law," a new Nevada statute (NRS 125C.243) limiting court-ordered reunification therapy, which took effect in July 2025 - after the evidentiary hearing ended but before the written custody order issued in August 2025. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. It explained that the reunification obligation came from the 2021 stipulated California judgment, which Nevada was required to recognize and enforce under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and that the Nevada custody order itself did not order any further reunification therapy. Nevada law presumes statutes apply only going forward unless the legislature clearly says otherwise, and applying the new statute to undo a 2021 California judgment "would impair settled expectations." The court also noted Stevens never raised Kayden's Law in the district court, raised the related "reunification was still ongoing" argument for the first time in her reply brief, and had conceded below that the California judgment could be registered and enforced.

The court also rejected Stevens's claim that the district court improperly handed its custody authority to Dr. Wilburn. While custody decisions belong exclusively to the court and cannot be delegated, the court found that Dr. Wilburn's role was limited to therapy, that her incremental increases in Laney's parenting time implemented the stipulated reunification plan under the court's supervision, and that Stevens never objected to those adjustments below - raising the delegation theory for the first time on appeal.

On contempt, the court held the order to show cause was valid - Stevens identified no authority that a validly issued OSC is extinguished when its hearing date is continued - that the May 2023 "privacy alone" directive was clear and unambiguous, and that the sanction was civil because Stevens could avoid jail by satisfying the purge conditions. On custody, the court held that the achieved reunification - "a wholesale restoration of a previously severed parent-child relationship" - was a substantial change in circumstances, and that the district court's detailed, factor-by-factor best-interest findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court emphasized that the district court expressly stated the contempt finding "has no bearing on the custodial determination herein," so the modification was not punishment for misconduct.

Finally, the court dismissed the part of the appeal challenging the $15,000 fee-and-cost award. That award was not final when Stevens filed her notice of appeal; once the final fee order was entered, it was separately appealable, but Stevens never filed a separate notice of appeal from it, so the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review it. Because the judgment was affirmed and there was no remand, Stevens's request for reassignment to a different judge was moot.

Counsel of record