1. Ortega v. The Eighth Judicial District Court (Cutter), No. 92312-COA, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition (Unpublished Disposition, July 1, 2026)
The petitioner and the real party in interest married, had one child, and divorced in 2023. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court (Nadin Cutter) modified the father’s parenting time, and that order is on appeal in a separate docket. While that appeal was pending, disputes arose over the mother withholding the child, and the district court entered further orders addressing the custodial arrangement and exchanges. After the father moved for primary physical custody, the court shortened time, appointed a guardian ad litem, and ordered an in-person custodial exchange, warning that failure to appear could result in a bench warrant. When the mother failed to appear with the child despite being called and directed to do so, the court issued a bench warrant for her arrest along with orders directing return of the child to the father.
The mother petitioned for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the various orders. She argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter its January, February, and March 2026 orders because they expanded enforcement, altered visitation, or accelerated custody modification while the earlier appeal was pending. She also challenged the orders transferring temporary sole physical custody to the father, and separately challenged the contempt determination and the issuance of a bench warrant for her arrest.
In Nevada, a writ of mandamus may compel performance of a required duty or control an arbitrary, capricious, or manifest abuse of discretion, and a writ of prohibition arrests proceedings taken in excess of or without jurisdiction; whether to entertain such a petition is discretionary, and the petitioner bears the burden of showing relief is warranted. A contempt order is not appealable and must be challenged by writ. A direct contempt occurring in the court’s immediate presence may be punished summarily, but only through an order that recites the facts, finds the person guilty, and prescribes the punishment; a contempt sanction lacking a purge clause is criminal in nature, and a warrant of attachment must address bail.
The Court of Appeals held that the mother had not met her burden of showing that extraordinary intervention was warranted as to her jurisdictional challenges or the temporary transfer of custody, and it denied the petition as to those issues. But it held the district court abused its discretion in the procedure it used to hold her in direct criminal contempt and jail her without bail, because the bench warrant did not find her guilty, prescribe any punishment, or set bail, and allowed up to 72 hours to pass before the court would even be notified of the arrest. The court therefore granted the petition in part and directed issuance of a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate the bench warrant, while noting that nothing prevents the district court from addressing any ongoing contempt or reentering the now-expired custody orders if warranted.
2. In the Matter of the Joint Petition of Lynn and John McKendry, No. 90847-COA, Order Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part (Unpublished Disposition, July 1, 2026)
The parties divorced in 2020. Under the property settlement, they agreed to hold two California homes as joint tenants, with the wife responsible for debts on one and the husband responsible for debts on the other. After the wife moved to enforce the agreement, the parties reached a global post-decree settlement, memorialized as amendments to the decree, under which they agreed to list the South Lake Tahoe property for sale, with the husband taking the lead on the realtor and the parties sharing the proceeds equally. When the husband later moved to enforce those amendments, claiming the wife had moved into that property and was impeding its sale, the district court (Thomas Stckard) found its intervention necessary to prevent loss of the asset to imminent foreclosure and granted the husband authority to list the property, engage a realtor, and accept an offer on both parties’ behalf, while enjoining the wife from interfering.
The wife appealed the enforcement order arguing the district court abused its discretion by giving the husband the sole right to sell the property when she wanted to buy out his equity, and by directing sale proceeds into his counsel’s trust account. She contended the Nevada court lacked authority to order the sale of real property located in California, asserted the judge was biased due to a personal relationship with the husband’s counsel, and claimed she had signed the settlement under duress, rendering the amendments void.
In Nevada, a district court has inherent authority to interpret and enforce its own decrees but may not rewrite the parties’ agreement to add terms they did not adopt; divorce-proceeding decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, while interpretation of an agreement-based decree is a question of law reviewed de novo. A court with personal jurisdiction over the parties may adjudicate and control their interests in out-of-state real property, and it retains continuing jurisdiction over the decree. A claim of judicial bias generally requires an extrajudicial source and a showing of deep-seated favoritism or antagonism, and an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court.
The Court of Appeals held that the wife failed to show any abuse of discretion: the amendments did not provide for one party to buy out the other’s equity, the court permissibly directed the husband to oversee the sale and route proceeds through a trust account, and the court had jurisdiction over the California property through its jurisdiction over the parties. It rejected the bias claim as not cogently argued and unsupported by any extrajudicial source. As to the duress argument, the court held it went to the validity of the amended decree from which the wife had not timely appealed, leaving the court without jurisdiction to consider it. The judgment was therefore affirmed in part and the appeal dismissed in part.
3. Wolfe v. Mannion, No. 91617-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, July 8, 2026)
The parties share one child with significant medical and developmental needs. They initially agreed to joint legal and physical custody under a 2023 decree with a rotating short-interval schedule. After the mother became engaged to and married a servicemember transferring to California, she moved for primary physical custody and permission to relocate; the father opposed and countermoved for primary physical custody. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court (Denise Gentile) denied both parents’ motions for primary custody, effectively denied relocation as not shown to be in the child’s best interest, but found the mother’s move a substantial change in circumstances and ordered continued joint physical custody on a one-month-on, one-month-off schedule. It kept base child support at $0 given similar incomes but ordered the mother to pay the father $100 per month in transportation-related support.
The father appealed the order of affirmance. arguing the district court violated his due process rights by imposing an unpled long-distance joint-custody arrangement first raised at the hearing; that there was no substantial change in circumstances and joint custody with a monthly cross-state schedule was not in the child’s best interest, faulting the court for inadequately weighing the child’s special needs; and that the court misapplied the governing framework by awarding transportation costs while declining to modify child support and without adequate findings on the amount.
In Nevada, procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because the sole consideration in custody is the child’s best interest, a court may fashion a custody outcome not limited to the specific relief the parties requested. Custody and child support determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld if supported by substantial evidence, with appellate courts not reweighing evidence or witness credibility; a parent’s relocation can be a substantial change in circumstances, and modification also requires that the child’s best interest be served. Transportation costs cannot be considered separately from a parent’s overall child support obligation but may be addressed as an adjustment to the baseline within that determination.
The Court of Appeals held that the father had both notice and an opportunity to be heard because Nevada law made joint custody a possible outcome of the competing motions and he testified on the point, so his due process claim failed. It held the court did not abuse its discretion in finding the mother’s relocation a substantial change in circumstances and in concluding joint physical custody and a monthly schedule served the child’s best interest, since substantial evidence showed both parents could meet the child’s needs and the father’s arguments largely asked the court to reweigh the evidence. It also held the court properly treated the $100 transportation award as part of the overall child support determination and made sufficient findings to support it. The judgment was affirmed.
4. Grigalanz v. Copas, No. 91619-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, July 9, 2026)
The appellant had been in a romantic relationship with the respondent and lived with her and her three minor children, but he is admittedly not the biological father of any of them. After the relationship ended, he petitioned for custody of all three children, alleging the parents had failed to adequately care for them and that awarding him custody would serve the children’s best interest. He never served the petition on any of the parents. At a hearing on his motion for a temporary custody order, the district court (Mary Perry) orally dismissed the petition for lack of standing; after he unsuccessfully moved to disqualify the judge, the court entered a written order dismissing for lack of standing.
The appellant challenged both the dismissal and the denial of his disqualification motion. He argued he had standing under a statute defining a “person acting as a parent,” that persuasive nationwide authority allows a psychological or de facto parent to seek custody, and that the in loco parentis doctrine supplied standing. He also contended the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing and make best-interest findings before dismissing his petition.
In Nevada, a dismissal for lack of standing is reviewed de novo under the same standard as a dismissal for failure to state a claim. The statutory definition of a “person acting as a parent” does not by its terms confer standing on a non-parent to seek custody, and the in loco parentis doctrine in Nevada arises principally in the equitable-adoption context rather than as a basis for an unrelated person to seek custody; out-of-state authority that does not analyze Nevada law is unpersuasive. An evidentiary hearing and best-interest findings are required only when a party with standing is litigating a custody dispute, so a purely legal standing question can be resolved without them.
The Court of Appeals held that the appellant, who conceded he was not biologically related to the children, failed to establish standing to seek their custody: the statute he relied on merely supplies a definition and does not grant standing, and neither the in loco parentis doctrine nor the extra-jurisdictional authorities he cited supplied it. It held the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or make best-interest findings because the matter turned on a purely legal standing question. Having found no standing, the court declined to reach his service and judicial-bias arguments and affirmed the dismissal.
5. Adams v. Lee, No. 91436-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, July 24, 2026)
The parties are in a long-running custody dispute over three children. A 2021 California order gave them joint legal custody, gave the father primary physical custody and educational decision-making, and gave the mother supervised parenting time; that order was later registered in Nevada. After 2024 proceedings, the district court (Sandra Unsworth) declined to modify the arrangement, keeping the mother’s parenting time supervised and noting her limited and troubled recent contact with the children. In May 2025 the mother moved for sole legal and physical custody, alleging the children were out of school and medically neglected and that the father was alienating her; the father opposed, explaining the absences, an individualized education plan, arranged therapy, and a closed investigation. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding she had not made a prima facie showing of a substantial change in circumstances.
The mother argued the district court abused its discretion by denying modification because she had shown a substantial change (educational and medical neglect, her completion of parenting programs, and parenting-time obstacles beyond her control) and the court should have credited her evidence. She contended continued supervision was unfounded because its factual basis was over five years old, that the court failed to consider the best-interest factors, that it erred in excluding or disregarding her evidence, and that her due process rights were violated when the father, his mother, and a program manager testified without notice.
In Nevada, denial of a motion to modify custody is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence. A prima facie case for modification requires both a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare and that modification serves the child’s best interest, with the changed-circumstances requirement resting on res judicata principles; if no substantial change is shown, the court need not make best-interest findings. An appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record, including necessary transcripts, and when a required transcript is not furnished the appellate court presumes it supports the district court’s decision. Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The Court of Appeals held that the mother failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the finding of no substantial change in circumstances. Because she certified she was not requesting transcripts and never provided the evidentiary-hearing transcript, the court presumed it supported the district court’s findings and could not meaningfully review her evidence-based arguments; the court permissibly relied on its prior orders keeping parenting time supervised, and having found no substantial change it was not required to make best-interest findings. It rejected her evidentiary challenge on the same record ground and for lack of cogent argument, and found no due process violation because a pre-hearing order gave her notice and she had an opportunity to be heard and to cross-examine, with any assumed error unshown to be prejudicial. The judgment was affirmed.
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Carerra, Campbell, Plata, Ocasio, and Stevens - September 19, 2026
- Vol. 82 — The Evolution of Sole Custody in Nevada - September 15, 2026
- New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Ortega, In the Matter of the Joint Petition of Lynn and John McKendry, Wolfe, Grigalanz, and Adams - September 9, 2026