Case library
Nevada family-law decisions, briefed for practice.
1202 decisions, organized by topic. Practitioner summaries with key holdings, posture, disposition, and the statutes cited - up front, where you need them. Every summary links to the full opinion.
Case Library = case briefs of the decisions themselves. For long-form explainers of the governing law, Guides; for the exact quotable passages, verified verbatim, the Canon.
470 cases · Custody & Relocation - NRS ch. 125C - custody, visitation, relocation.
NGUYEN VS. BOYNES (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 22, 2017133 Nev. Adv. Op. 32 (2017) · 69166 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Standard of review. The Court reviewed application of the equitable adoption doctrine de novo as a question of law, citing Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011). It reviewed the parentage…
MIZRACHI VS. MIZRACHI (CHILD CUSTODY)
Sep 15, 2016132 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Ct. App. 2016) · 66176-COA · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.The Court of Appeals addressed the proper procedure for resolving a dispute over an ambiguous term in an agreement-based divorce decree governing custody. Threshold characterization: clarification vs. modification.…
KAR VS. KAR (CHILD CUSTODY)
Aug 12, 2016132 Nev. Adv. Op. 63 (2016) · 65985 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed UCCJEA jurisdictional questions de novo where the underlying facts are undisputed, citing Friedman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 842, 847, 264 P.3d 1161, 1165 (2011). The…
HARRISON VS. HARRISON (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 28, 2016132 Nev. Adv. Op. 56 (2016) · 66157 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court reviewed the district court's denial of modification under an abuse of discretion standard. See Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). The opinion situates the analysis at the…
LEWIS VS. LEWIS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 30, 2016132 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (2016) · 66497 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.Standard of review: Contempt orders are normally reviewed for abuse of discretion, In re Water Rights of the Humboldt River, 118 Nev. 901, 907, 59 P.3d 1226, 1230 (2002), but constitutional issues are reviewed de novo,…
MICONE VS. MICONE (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 3, 2016132 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (2016) · 67934 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.Standard of review: Child custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Jurisdiction over non-party custodians. The Court extended its…
DAVIS VS. EWALEFO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 2, 2015131 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (2015) · 63731 · Nevada Supreme Court
Petition for reconsideration granted; affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.Standard of review: The district court has "broad discretionary power" in determining child custody, including visitation, Hayes v. Gallacher, 115 Nev. 1, 4, 972 P.2d 1138, 1140 (1999); Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev.…
BLUESTEIN VS. BLUESTEIN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 26, 2015131 Nev. Adv. Op. 14 (2015) · 62308 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review: Custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Purely legal questions are reviewed de novo. Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev.…
BLANCO VS. BLANCO (CHILD CUSTODY)
Oct 31, 2013129 Nev. 723, 311 P.3d 1170 (2013) · 60153 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion; any resulting default decree must comply with the standards set forth (best-interest merits determination for custody and support, equal disposition of community property with findings, and Young/Foster analysis for remaining claims).The court defined the limits on case-concluding discovery sanctions (default) in divorce proceedings, holding that the permissibility of a default depends on the particular claim. Holdings: (1) Child custody and child…
Rennels v. Rennels
Aug 4, 2011127 Nev. 564, 257 P.3d 396 (2011) · 53872 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.Standard of review. The court reviews custody decisions, including visitation schedules, for an abuse of discretion, Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 428, 216 P.3d 218, 226 (2009); Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015,…
Potter v. Potter
Sep 22, 2005121 Nev. 613, 119 P.3d 1246 (2005) · 42488 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions.The en banc court, per Becker, C.J., addressed whether NRS 125C.200 applies to parties who share joint physical custody. The court reviewed the question de novo, noting that "Statutory interpretation is a question of…
FLYNN VS. FLYNN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 12, 2004120 Nev. 436, 92 P.3d 1224 (2004) · 41543 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("we affirm the district court's order.")The court addressed whether the Schwartz relocation factors apply to a temporary, fixed-term out-of-state move by a primary custodial parent, and affirmed the denial of relocation. Custody and relocation determinations…
MARTIN VS. MARTIN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 10, 2004120 Nev. 342, 90 P.3d 981 (2004) · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed; the order changing child custody and awarding child support to James was reversed, and the stay pending appeal was vacated.Per Curiam. Matters of custody and visitation rest in the district court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion, Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 922 P.2d 541 (1996); Sims v.…
GEPFORD VS. GEPFORD (CHILD CUSTODY)
Nov 30, 2000116 Nev. 1033, 13 P.3d 47 (2000) · 34449 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for a new custody hearing with specific findings under the second prong of Murphy.The court reversed a change of primary physical custody, holding substantial evidence did not support the finding that the children's welfare would be substantially enhanced by the change. A change of primary custody…
MASON VS. MASON (CHILD CUSTODY)
Apr 20, 1999115 Nev. 68, 975 P.2d 340 (1999) · 31759 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court affirmed denial of a relocation petition under the Schwartz framework. See Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 383, 812 P.2d 1268, 1271 (1991). The district court found the threshold good-faith factor was not…
BLAICH VS. BLAICH (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 31, 1998114 Nev. 1446, 971 P.2d 822 (1998) · 30434 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for reevaluation of the relocation and custody motions under the proper standard.The court conducts de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law. SIIS v. United Exposition Services Co., 109 Nev. 28, 30, 846 P.2d 294, 295 (1993). It first held that Christine's reply memorandum was timely…
DAVIS VS. DAVIS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 31, 1998114 Nev. 1461, 970 P.2d 1084 (1998) · 31003 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Custody decisions rest within the district court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Culbertson v. Culbertson, 91 Nev. 230, 233, 533 P.2d 768, 769 (1975). Under NRS 125A.350…
HALBROOK VS. HALBROOK (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 31, 1998114 Nev. 1455, 971 P.2d 1262 (1998) · 30880, 31441 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for reevaluation of the relocation motion; attorney's fees award reversed.Applying Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 382-83, 812 P.2d 1268, 1270-71 (1991), and its progeny, the court held the district court erred in finding the moving parent lacked a sensible, good-faith reason to relocate.…
MCGUINNESS VS. MCGUINNESS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 30, 1998114 Nev. 1431, 970 P.2d 1074 (1998) · 30836 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for reevaluation of the custody decision and the motion to relocate under the proper standard.The court held that NRS 125A.350 applies to a parent who shares joint custody and seeks to move out of state, and further held it applies where only temporary custody has been established. In determining custody, the…
HOPPER VS. HOPPER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Oct 1, 1997113 Nev. 1138; 946 P.2d 171 · 28650 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate Jayme as primary physical custodian.The court reversed a change of primary physical custody for failure to satisfy the first prong of the modification standard. A change in custody is warranted only when '(1) the circumstances of the parents have been…
MCDERMOTT VS. MCDERMOTT (CHILD CUSTODY)
Oct 1, 1997113 Nev. 1134; 946 P.2d 177 · 29003 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the custody modification in light of the NRS 125.480 rebuttable presumption.The court reversed a change of custody for the district court's failure to apply the domestic-violence rebuttable presumption in NRS 125.480. Custody modification requires a material change in circumstances and that the…
WALLACE VS. WALLACE (CHILD CUSTODY)
Aug 16, 1996112 Nev. 1015, 922 P.2d 541 (1996) · 28145 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for proper determination of the visitation schedule, child support during summer visitation, and grandparent visitation.By the Court, Rose, J. (Steffen, C.J., Young and Shearing, JJ., concurring). The court reversed and remanded a post-divorce order that set a long-distance visitation schedule, abated child support, and granted…
COOK VS. COOK (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 27, 1995111 Nev. 822, 898 P.2d 702 (1995) · 26360 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the motion to relocate and to establish a liberal visitation schedule and adjusted child support.Per Curiam. The court reversed the denial of a custodial parent's motion to relocate with the child to Louisiana under NRS 125A.350 and remanded with instructions to grant it. Applying Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev.…
GANDEE VS. GANDEE (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 25, 1995111 Nev. 754, 895 P.2d 1285 (1995) · 26209, 26241 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded in both consolidated cases, with instructions to grant the relocation motions and fix reasonable, alternative visitation schedules.Per Curiam (two cases consolidated for disposition). The court again construed NRS 125A.350 and reversed the denial of relocation in both cases. Governing framework. Following Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 890 P.2d 1309…
STEWARD VS. STEWARD (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 2, 1995111 Nev. 295, 890 P.2d 777 (1995) · 24563 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed. (District court order granting the grandparents visitation reversed.)The court interpreted NRS 125A.340 for the first time. It applied settled rules of statutory construction: statutes are interpreted consistent with legislative intent (Recanzone v. Nevada Tax Comm'n, 92 Nev. 302, 305,…
TRENT VS. TRENT (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 2, 1995111 Nev. 309, 890 P.2d 1309 (1995) · 24741 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition for removal.The court applied Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991), its only prior decision on NRS 125A.350. Schwartz requires a threshold showing that an actual advantage will be realized by both the child and…
MCMONIGLE VS. MCMONIGLE (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 22, 1994110 Nev. 1407, 887 P.2d 742 (1994) · 25296 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions that primary custody be restored to the mother.Modification of primary custody is governed by Murphy v. Murphy, 84 Nev. 710, 711, 447 P.2d 664, 665 (1968), which permits a change only where (1) the circumstances of the parents have been materially altered and (2)…
JONES VS. JONES (CHILD CUSTODY)
Nov 30, 1994110 Nev. 1253, 885 P.2d 563 (1994) · 24876 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the petition for removal.Applying Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991), the court reaffirmed that NRS 125A.350's purpose is to preserve the noncustodial parent's relationship, requiring a balance of the custodial parent's…
TRUAX VS. TRUAX (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 19, 1994110 Nev. 437, 874 P.2d 10 (1994) · 24176 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Modification or termination of a joint custody order is governed by NRS 125.510(2), which authorizes modification or termination 'if it is shown that the best interest of the child requires' it. The court rejected…
PEARSON VS. PEARSON (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 30, 1994110 Nev. 293, 871 P.2d 343 (1994) · 23635 · Nevada Supreme Court
Order vacated and matter remanded to the family court for a custody hearing; the children to remain in the father's custody in the interim.The district court's appointment of an independent expert to assist in the custody determination was authorized by NRS 125.490(3). The court held the mother's due process claim barred by the invited-error doctrine: a…
SIMS VS. SIMS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 22, 1993109 Nev. 1146, 865 P.2d 328 (1993) · 23907 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded for a full presentation of evidence and a redetermination of custody.The trial court has broad discretion over custody, undisturbed absent a clear abuse (Primm v. Lopes, 109 Nev. 502, 853 P.2d 103, 104 (1993)), but the appellate court must be satisfied the determination was made for…
ROONEY VS. ROONEY (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 28, 1993109 Nev. 540, 853 P.2d 123 (1993) · 23637 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Nevada statutes and case law vest district courts with broad discretion over child custody (NRS 125.510; Culbertson v. Culbertson, 91 Nev. 230, 533 P.2d 768 (1975); Paine v. Paine, 71 Nev. 262, 287 P.2d 716 (1955)).…
MOSER VS. MOSER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Aug 6, 1992108 Nev. 572, 836 P.2d 63 (1992) · 22726 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed; the district court's order was reversed and the child ordered returned forthwith to her mother in Michigan, consistent with the referee's recommendations.NRS 125.005 makes court-appointed domestic relations referees the masters of the facts in custody cases; they hear disputed factual issues and make written findings of fact and recommendations. NRS 125.005(2). Under NRS…
ADAMS VS. ADAMS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Nov 5, 1991107 Nev. 790, 820 P.2d 752 (1991) · 21635 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Custody orders occupy an anomalous position under the Full Faith and Credit Clause because they remain modifiable. Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 180 (1988). Nevada has adopted the UCCJA (NRS Chapter 125A), which…
SCHWARTZ VS. SCHWARTZ (CHILD RELOCATION)
Jun 6, 1991107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991) · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.Per Curiam. In a case of first impression interpreting NRS 125A.350 (Nevada's anti-removal statute), the Court held that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in deciding whether a custodial parent may…
SWAN VS. SWAN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Aug 1, 1990106 Nev. 464, 796 P.2d 221 (1990) · 20286 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed. (Per curiam.)The court reversed the denial of a motion to vacate the custody provisions of a default divorce decree, holding the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act…
DAGHER VS. DAGHER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Feb 6, 1987103 Nev. 26, 731 P.2d 1329 (1987) · 17427 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed; the order changing custody is vacated and the cause remanded for a priority custody hearing, with the child to remain with the father pending the outcome. (Per curiam.)The court reversed the denial of the mother's motion to set aside an order that had changed physical custody of the parties' daughter to the father. The order followed a five-minute hearing set on a purported…
KERN VS. KERN (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jan 3, 198096 Nev. 20, 604 P.2d 354 (1980) · 11474 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Reversed and remanded with direction to hold a full evidentiary custody hearing.The Court (per curiam) reversed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus that had ordered a child returned to the custodial parent without an evidentiary custody hearing. At issue was whether the district court erred in…
ARNOLD VS. ARNOLD (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 20, 197995 Nev. 951, 604 P.2d 109 (1979) · 11928 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Since the record does not demonstrate that the district court below abused its discretion, we affirm its award of permanent custody to respondent.")The court reviewed the custody award for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding the district court properly weighed the particular facts and circumstances to serve the child's best interest, citing Smith v. Smith, 90…
BUTLER VS. BUTLER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jun 8, 197894 Nev. 313, 579 P.2d 780 (1978) · 10406 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded. ("we reverse the district court order and remand the case for proceedings, consistent with this opinion.")The court reversed an order modifying custody that rested solely on the "tender years" doctrine of Peavey v. Peavey, 85 Nev. 571, 460 P.2d 110 (1969). Without reaching the appellant's challenge to the validity and…
BRUNER VS. BRUNER (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 15, 197894 Nev. 122, 575 P.2d 928 (1978) · 9140 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")In a brief per curiam opinion, the court affirmed the denial of a father's motion to change the custody of his son. The court held that substantial evidence supported the district court's apparent conclusion that the…
SOGGE VS. SOGGE (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 2, 197894 Nev. 88, 575 P.2d 590 (1978) · 9294 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")The court affirmed the denial of the appellant's motion for attorney's fees incurred in opposing a change-of-custody motion. The award of attorney's fees in divorce proceedings lies within the sound discretion of the…
MCMURTRY VS. MCMURTRY (CHILD CUSTODY)
Nov 10, 197692 Nev. 630, 555 P.2d 959 (1976) · 8507 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")The court reviewed a jurisdictional challenge to a custody award entered after a contested hearing. Notice that the district court had set a hearing to consider "all matters pending" in the divorce litigation was…
NICHOLS VS. NICHOLS (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 23, 197591 Nev. 479, 537 P.2d 1196 (1975) · 7972 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")The court reviewed an award of custody of a young child to the father against a tender years challenge. Matters of custody and support of a minor child rest in the sound discretion of the trial court, not disturbed…
JOHNSON VS. JOHNSON (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 15, 197591 Nev. 299, 535 P.2d 160 (1975) · 7476 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("The divorce decree and order of modification appealed from are affirmed.")The court addressed appealability and the tender years doctrine in a custody modification. An order denying objections to findings of fact and conclusions of law is not an appealable special order made after final…
LAWRY VS. LAWRY (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 14, 197591 Nev. 289, 535 P.2d 158 (1975) · 7691 · Nevada Supreme Court
Remanded. ("we remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")In a brief per curiam opinion, the court reviewed an order awarding sole custody to the mother and terminating the father's child support. Because the order was silent as to visitation, the court declined to imply a…
CULBERTSON VS. CULBERTSON (CHILD CUSTODY)
Apr 9, 197591 Nev. 230, 533 P.2d 768 (1975) · 7378 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed. ("Affirmed.")The court addressed acquiescence in a judgment and the standard for modifying custody. A party who has taken advantage of the favorable provisions of a judgment or acquiesced in its terms by enforcing it will not be…
SMITH VS. SMITH (CHILD CUSTODY)
Dec 20, 197490 Nev. 422, 529 P.2d 209 (1974) · 7478 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court affirmed a decree granting the respondent a divorce and custody of the parties' two children. On jurisdiction, Nevada's six-week residency requirement was satisfied by substantial evidence - the respondent's…
PRINS VS. PRINS (CHILD CUSTODY)
May 1, 197288 Nev. 261, 496 P.2d 165 (1972) · 6665 · Nevada Supreme Court
Affirmed.The court affirmed an order modifying a divorce decree that, among other things, defined and conditioned the father's visitation, continued custody with the mother, entered judgment for support arrearages, and…
RODELA VS. RODELA (CHILD CUSTODY)
Mar 1, 197288 Nev. 134, 494 P.2d 277 (1972) · 6653 · Nevada Supreme Court
Reversed and remanded.In a divorce action, neither the pleadings nor the proposed decree apprised the district judge of a settlement provision granting the husband visitation of a minor child he had neither sired nor adopted, but who was the…
Every summary is independently verified against the source opinion; summaries are informational research aids, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision. Topic groupings are derived automatically from each case’s category tag and cited statutes; a case may appear under two topics.