1. Carerra v. Peterson, No. 91367-COA, ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE (Unpublished Disposition, August 6, 2026)
Salvatore Carrera and Lori Peterson, never married, share one child, N.P., born in 2012. N.P. is on the autism spectrum. Since 2014, they’ve held joint legal custody, with Lori having primary physical custody. After an October 2024 incident in which Daniel, Lori’s ex-husband she was living with, was arrested for domestic violence against Lori, Salvatore moved in March 2025 to modify custody and relocate N.P. to his home in Texas. Following an evidentiary hearing at which the parties, Daniel, Lori’s sister, and three sheriff’s deputies testified, the District Court (Sandra Unsworth) found by a preponderance of the evidence that N.P. had lived in a home where domestic violence occurred, but concluded that the best-interest factors favored Lori retaining primary physical custody, emphasizing N.P.’s special needs, and his stable, established relationships with Lori and Daniel. The court denied modification and relocation.
Salvatore appealed, arguing that the District Court abused its discretion in denying modification and relocation. He challenged several evidentiary rulings, including the exclusion of 9-1-1 call recordings, and the courts’ refusal to grant his requests for admission after Lori’s untimely responses. He further argued that the court failed to apply the domestic violence rebuttable presumption, and did not properly weigh domestic violence in its best-interest analysis. Last, he contested several best-interest findings as unsupported, and asserted that the judge was biased against him.
In Nevada, child custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factual findings will be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, with appellate courts not reweighing evidence or credibility. Physical custody may be modified only on a showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare, and that modification serves the child’s best interest, which is the sole consideration, guided by the non-exhaustive statutory best-interest factors. Domestic violence is both a best-interest factor, and, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, creates a rebuttable presumption against custody — but only where a parent or a person seeking custody committed the violence. Evidentiary and discovery rulings lie within the district court’s discretion, discovery sanctions that bar evidence are disfavored in custody matters, and a party seeking reversal on a discovery or evidentiary error must show harm to substantial rights. A judge is presumed unbiased, and adverse rulings alone do not establish disqualifying bias.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, finding that Salvatore failed to show error in the excluded 9-1-1 calls, or to cogently argue his other evidentiary challenges; that any error regarding the requests for admission was harmless because he questioned Lori on those subjects, and the court decided the matter on its merits; that the rebuttable presumption did not apply because Daniel was neither a parent nor seeking custody, and the court properly considered the domestic violence in its best-interest analysis; that the challenged best-interest findings were supported by substantial evidence; and that Salvatore did not establish judicial bias or grounds for reassignment. The court AFFIRMED the District Court’s judgment.
2. Campbell v. Campbell, No. 91924-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, August 19, 2026)
Camron Campbell and Hannah Stewart (fka Campbell) married in 2018 and share two minor children, born in 2019 and 2022. Their 2023 divorce decree adopted a settlement giving them joint legal and physical custody. Camron later relocated to Elko County, and in 2025, moved to modify custody, seeking primary physical custody. Hannah opposed, and asked to adjust the parenting-time schedule given the new distance. After an evidentiary hearing at which the parties, their mothers, the oldest child’s care providers, and a court-appointed custody evaluator testified, the District Court (Thomas Stockard) found substantial changes in circumstances (Camron’s relocation and the oldest child’s behavioral issues/diagnoses), determined that six best-interest factors favored Hannah, with the rest neutral or irrelevant, awarded Hannah primary physical custody, while maintaining joint legal custody and giving Camron structured parenting time, including five weeks each summer.
Camron appealed. He first argued that the District Court violated his due process rights by awarding Hannah primary physical custody when she had sought only to maintain joint physical custody. Next, he argued that the court’s findings on the best-interest factors were not supported by substantial evidence, and that the court failed to tie its custody decision to its best-interest findings and to foster frequent, continuing relationships with both parents.
In Nevada, a claimed due process violation is reviewed de novo, and procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. Because the sole consideration in a custody dispute is the children’s best interest and courts are not limited to a particular remedy, a party who moves to modify custody is on notice that any custodial outcome, including an award of primary custody to the other parent, is possible. Custody decisions are otherwise reviewed for abuse of discretion, and factual findings are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, with the appellate court not reweighing evidence or credibility. To modify physical custody, the moving party must show both a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare, and that modification serves the child’s best interest. The court’s order must connect the best-interest findings to the custody determination. Where an oral pronouncement conflicts with the written order, the written order controls.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not err. Camron’s due process argument failed because Nevada’s custody statutes put him on notice that primary custody could be awarded to Hannah in response to his own motion, and he had a full opportunity to be heard at the evidentiary hearing. His challenges to the best-interest findings failed because those findings, including that Hannah had not withheld the children to alienate Camron, and that Hannah was better positioned to manage the oldest child’s ongoing treatment and the children’s stability, were supported by substantial evidence, and the court is not free to reweigh evidence or credibility. The court also concluded that the order properly tied its findings to the custody decision, adequately fostered both parental relationships, and rejected Camron’s parenting-time challenges. The District Court’s judgment was AFFIRMED.
3. Plata v. Gutierrez, No. 91173-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, August 21, 2026)
Jose Plata and Alondra Gutierrez married in 2020 and share three minor children born in 2011, 2015, and 2018. Their 2024 divorce gave Gutierrez primary physical custody, and ordered Plata to pay $1,126 per month in child support. Gutierrez later filed motions to enforce the support order and for contempt, alleging that Plata was not paying support, was not reimbursing her for medical expenses, and was accruing arrears. During the proceedings, CPS was alerted to a July 2024 incident involving Gutierrez and the youngest child. Gutierrez faced a criminal charge that was dismissed after she completed a class. Plata opposed the enforcement motions and countermoved to modify custody, parenting time, arrears, and to reduce his support obligation based on financial hardship. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court (Charles Hoskin) denied modification of custody, found Plata in contempt for failing to pay child support, and imposed monetary sanctions.
Plata appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying custody modification, contending that the July 2024 belt incident was a substantial change in circumstances that should have triggered the domestic-violence rebuttable presumption, and that several best-interest factors were wrongly weighed against him; that the court should have modified his child support obligation given his unemployment and seasonal work; and that the court held him in contempt for non-payment without making findings about his ability to pay.
In Nevada, custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence, and appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or credibility. The sole consideration is the children’s best interest, and a party seeking modification must show both a substantial change in circumstances and that modification serves the children’s best interest, with failure on the best-interest prong being fatal. The domestic violence rebuttable presumption applies only where acts of domestic violence are established by clear and convincing evidence. Child support and contempt orders are also reviewed for abuse of discretion, but deference is not owed to legal error or to findings so conclusory that they may mask it. A court must actually address a party’s support-modification request and make findings, and before holding a party in contempt for failing to pay child support, it must find that the party had the ability to comply, but failed to make an effort to do so. Issues not raised on appeal are forfeited.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying custody modification, and that its best-interest findings, including the domestic-violence factor were neutral, supported by substantial evidence, and that Plata’s arguments amounted to a request to reweigh evidence and credibility, which the court could not do. Because he failed the best-interest prong, the court did not need to rule on the substantial-change question. However, the Court of Appeals Reversed and Remanded on the two support-related issues, finding that the District Court had incorrectly stated that Plata had never sought to modify child support and made no findings on that request, and that it held him in contempt without the required findings on his ability to pay. The court Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded for the District Court to consider the support-modification request and make the necessary findings, including on ability to pay.
4. Ocasio v. Wirsz, No. 87589-COA & No. 87695-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, August 20, 2026)
Magdalena Ocasio and Jonathan Wirsz, never married, share one child, M.W., born in 2014. After Ocasio made false abuse allegations in 2020, the District Court (Dawn Throne) granted Wirsz primary physical custody. The parties later stipulated to an amended order (the ASAO) permitting Wirsz to relocate with M.W. to Idaho, maintaining his primary physical custody and joint legal custody with tie-breaking authority, waiving appeal rights, and requiring the parties to raise welfare concerns with each other before going to third parties. Ocasio subsequently alleged that Wirsz procured the relocation by fraud, mistreated M.W., and moved to modify custody and relocate the child back to Nevada. Wirsz countered by seeking sole legal custody and accused Ocasio of contempt . After extensive discovery disputes and a multi-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied Ocasio’s motion, granted Wirsz sole legal custody, held Ocasio in contempt for violating the ASAO, and later awarded Wirsz attorney fees and costs.
In consolidated appeals, Ocasio challenged both the custody judgment and the fees-and-costs award. On custody, she argued that the District Court should have adjudicated her fraud claim and allowed discovery (including subpoenas) into Wirsz’s Idaho business opportunity; that the court abused its discretion by not compelling testimony from two witnesses and by excluding her rebuttal expert; improperly relied on the psychiatrist’s diagnosis reached without certain psychological testing data; and wrongly awarded sole legal custody based on her diagnosis without connecting it to an inability to co-parent. On fees and costs, she argued that the court’s findings did not support the fee award, and that it should have considered Wirsz’s assets and wealth in assessing income disparity.
In Nevada, custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld if supported by substantial evidence, with the child’s best interest as the polestar. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or credibility. A stipulated custody order cannot be set aside for fraud absent a proper NRCP 60(b) motion, and discovery is limited to matters relevant to the claims actually before the court. Arguments not raised in district courts are forfeited, as are assertions unsupported by cogent argument or authority. A prior appellate ruling in the same case becomes law of the case. There is a statutory presumption favoring joint legal custody, rebutted when the parents cannot communicate, cooperate, and compromise in the child’s best interest. Attorney fees in custody actions may be awarded under NRS 125C.250 on findings of reasonableness assessed through the Brunzell factors and any income disparity under Wright, and an appellate court may affirm a fee award on a correct alternative ground. A party who fails to file a timely motion to retax and settle costs forfeits appellate review of a costs award.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in the custody rulings and affirmed. It declined to disturb the refusal to adjudicate the fraud claim or permit related discovery because Ocasio never sought NRCP 60(b) relief, and the prior appeal was the law of the case. The court deemed her witness-related and rebuttal expert arguments forfeited for lack of objection or opposition in the district court. It found the psychiatric diagnosis supported by substantial evidence, and not dependent on the missing test data. Last, the court concluded that the sole-legal-custody award rested on adequate findings connecting Ocasio’s diagnosis and conduct to an inability to coparent, overcoming the joint-custody presumption. On fees, the court held that the district court erred by declining to exercise its discretion under NRS 125C.250, but that the award was nonetheless supportable under that statute on the reasonableness of findings made, and it declined to rule on the costs challenge because Ocasio failed to file a timely motion to retax. The judgments were Affirmed.
5. Stevens v. Laney, No. 91371-COA, Order Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part (Unpublished Disposition, August 21, 2026)
Kimberly Stevens and Jefferson Laney married in 2006 and share three children; only the youngest, A.L. (born 2016), is at issue. Their 2021 Nevada divorce decree left custody to be set in California, the children’s home state under the UCCJEA. A 2021 California stipulated judgment gave Stevens primary physical custody and required the family to undergo reunification therapy, obligating the parties to follow the therapist’s parenting-time plan. After two therapists reported that Stevens interfered with reunification, Nevada assumed UCCJEA jurisdiction in 2023 and enforced the reunification framework, ordering private daily video calls between Laney and the children. Surveillance showed Stevens concealing herself and an older daughter near A.L. during those calls. Laney registered the California judgment and moved for contempt. By the conclusion of a 2025 evidentiary hearing, the reunification therapist testified that reunification had been achieved and recommended joint custody of A.L. The District Court (Mari Parlade) found that Stevens engaged in “pathogenic parenting,” held her in contempt, modified custody to joint physical and legal custody of A.L., and awarded Laney attorney fees and costs (later quantified at $15,000).
Stevens appealed, arguing that the District Court applied the wrong law by failing to apply Nevada’s newly enacted “Kayden’s Law” to the reunification process; unlawfully delegated custody decision-making authority to the reunification therapist; held her in contempt without a valid order to show cause and on inadequate findings; modified physical custody without a sufficient showing of changed circumstances or best interest, and did so to punish her; and awarded fees and costs in violation of timing rules. She also alleged judicial bias and sought reassignment to a different judge on remand.
In Nevada, the sole consideration in any custody determination is the child’s best interest, and custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and upheld if supported by substantial evidence, with credibility left to the District Court. Statutes are presumed to operate prospectively absent clear legislative intent otherwise, so a law effective after the underlying obligation arose does not retroactively invalidate it. Under the UCCJEA, a Nevada court must recognize and enforce a registered foreign custody determination, and may decline enforcement only where the foreign order is issued summarily without the findings the rendering state required. A fit parent’s stipulation to custody terms is presumed to be in the child’s best interest. Custodial decision-making cannot be delegated to a third party, but a court may assign a professional a limited, non-substantive therapeutic role while retaining ultimate authority. Modifying joint physical custody requires a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare, that modification serves the child’s best interest, and custody may not be used to punish parental misconduct, though misconduct may inform the statutory best-interest factors. Indirect contempt requires a statutorily compliant supporting affidavit and an order stating compliance terms in clear, unambiguous language. And a sanction with a genuine purge opportunity is civil. Arguments not raised in district court, raised for the first time in a reply brief, or induced by the appellant are forfeited. An award of attorney fees and costs is a separately appealable special order after final judgment, and a notice of appeal filed before that award is entered does not bring it before the appellate court.
The Court of Appeals held that the District Court did not err in enforcing the stipulated California reunification judgment, which rested on a best-interest determination Nevada was bound to honor, and that Kayden’s Law did not apply because the reunification obligation originated in the 2021 California judgment rather than any Nevada order, and therefore, the statute was not retroactive. It held there was no improper decision-making custody delegation because the therapist’s incremental adjustments implemented the reunification plan under the court’s continuing supervision, and any delegation challenge was raised too late. It upheld the contempt finding, concluding that the proceeding rested on a valid, affidavit-supported count litigated without timely objection, that the underlying privacy order was clear and unambiguous, that clear and convincing evidence showed a willful violation, and that the sanction’s purge conditions made it civil. The court affirmed the custody modification as supported by substantial evidence on both the changed-circumstances and best-interest prongs, and found no impermissible punishment. It dismissed the fee-and-cost challenge for lack of jurisdiction because that award was not final when the appeal was filed and was never separately appealed, and it deemed the reassignment request moot given the affirmance. The court Affirmed in Part and Dismissed in Part.
- 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