New Cases Added to MLAW: 5 COA Unpublished: Fisher, Curreri, Cooper, Alcala, and Bruchu

by | Dec 1, 2025 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

  1.    Fisher v. Eleventh Judicial District Court (Hon. Jim Shirley, Judge), and Beatriz Wing, Real Party in Interest, No. 91183-COA, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, September 4, 2025)

Steven A. Fisher appealed a divorce decree and the denial of his motion to change venue by filing an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus. He argued that the district court acted improperly, but the Nevada Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling that Fisher failed to show that extraordinary relief was warranted and that an appeal would have been an adequate legal remedy.

 

  1.    Curreri v. Curreri, No. 90197-COA, Order Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part (Unpublished Disposition, September 9, 2025)

Giana Curreri and Marcus Mayhall, parents of G.C.M. (born 2015), were never married. They initially stipulated to joint legal and physical custody in 2017. In 2019, Curreri alleged sexual abuse by Mayhall and sought sole custody. Investigations by CPS and law enforcement found the allegations unsubstantiated. The court awarded Mayhall temporary primary custody and ordered a parenting evaluation, which suggested Curreri may suffer from paranoid personality disorder. After reunification therapy, the parties again stipulated to joint custody in 2022.

In 2023, Mayhall filed an emergency motion alleging Curreri was coaching G.C.M. to make false abuse claims. CPS again found the allegations unsubstantiated. The court awarded Mayhall sole legal and primary physical custody, with Curreri receiving supervised visitation.  In 2024, Curreri filed an omnibus motion to modify custody, request judicial notice, and seek NRCP 60(b) relief. The district court denied all motions without an evidentiary hearing, finding no new changed circumstances and that Curreri’s claims were previously litigated.

Curreri appealed arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion to modify custody without a hearing, that the denial of NRCP 60(b) relief was improper, that the court erred in denying judicial notice, and that there was judicial bias.

In Nevada, a motion to modify custody requires a showing of a substantial change in circumstances since the last custody order and that modification serves the child’s best interest. (Romano v. Romano, Ellis v. Carucci).  NRCP 60(b) relief may be granted for mistake, fraud, or other misconduct, but is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  Judicial notice must be specific and supported by cogent argument. Allegations of judicial bias must be substantiated.

The Nevada Court of Appeals held that no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to modify custody; Curreri failed to allege any post-2023 changed circumstances. No abuse of discretion in denying NRCP 60(b) relief; Curreri’s claims were repetitive and previously rejected.  Judicial notice was properly denied due to lack of specificity.  No evidence of judicial bias was presented.

Affirmed: Denial of motion to modify custody, NRCP 60(b) relief, and judicial notice. Dismissed: Appeal of 2023 and earlier orders as untimely.

 

  1.    In the Matter of the Petition by: Alana Cooper. Farlough v. Cooper, No. 89485-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, September 9, 2025)

Alana Cooper filed a custody complaint in Nevada in January 2024, seeking joint legal and physical custody of her two children with Dexter Farlough. Farlough responded with a 2016 Arizona custody order granting him sole decision-making authority, but acknowledged that he and the children had moved to Nevada in June 2023. Both parties confirmed residency in Nevada during hearings. They stipulated to joint physical custody and eventually agreed to joint legal custody, with Farlough having final decision-making authority over medical and educational issues. The district court entered a custody decree reflecting these agreements and found it had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to modify the Arizona custody order.

Farlough appealed, arguing that Arizona retained exclusive jurisdiction, that Nevada should not have modified the custody order, that the district court erred in finding that the parties stipulated to joint legal custody, that he was not properly notified of hearings or motions, and that the judge was biased against him due to his gender.

The Nevada Court of Appeals held that the district court had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA because both parents and children resided in Nevada for over six months.  The parties validly stipulated to joint legal custody, with Farlough having final authority over specific issues. Farlough received proper notice and participated in hearings. No due process violation occurred.  No evidence of judicial bias was presented.

Affirmed.

 

  1.    Alcala v. Cristina and Jacob Bello, No. 89694-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, October 8, 2025)

Marcos Alcala and Esmeralda Alcala share three minor children.  In 2019, CPS removed the children after Marcos’ arrest for criminal offenses and substance abuse involving both parents.  The children were placed with their maternal grandparents, Cristina and Jacob Bello.  Marcos and Esmeralda divorced, and Esmeralda relinquished parental rights.  Marcos completed his case plan and the children were returned to his custody in 2023.

The Bellos petitioned for grandparent visitation under NRS 125C.050, alleging meaningful relationships and unreasonable denial of visits.  Marcos opposed, citing interference and safety concerns.  The District Court Judge (Frank Sullivan) held an evidentiary hearing with testimony from both parties, family members, and a caseworker. The court found that Marcos denied or unreasonably restricted visits after regaining custody, and that the children had resided with the Bellos (2019–2023), and had established strong emotional ties. The Bellos provided care, guidance, financial support, celebrated holidays, and maintained family bonds.  The court found no concerns about the Bellos’ fitness or willingness to foster a relationship with Marcos. The children expressed desire for contact with the Bellos, and the caseworker confirmed that there was a bond.  The District Court concluded that the Bellos rebutted the presumption favoring a fit parent’s decision under NRS 125C.050(4) by clear and convincing evidence, that visitation served the children’s best interests, that due process was satisfied, and that Marcos had notice, participated in the hearing, and presented evidence. The court granted the Bellos visitation of one weekend per month from Friday to Sunday with the condition that Esmeralda and her husband have no contact during visits.

Marcos appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by granting grandparent visitation, that the court failed to apply the rebuttable presumption favoring a fit parent’s decision under NRS 125C.050(4), and that the court violated Marcos’ due process rights.

In Nevada, visitation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Ramos v. Franklin, 139 Nev. 54).  Correct application of legal standards are reviewed de novo. (Kelley v. Kelley, 139 Nev. 359).  Rebuttable presumption: granting visitation is not in child’s best interests if a fit parent denies it. (NRS 125C.050(4)).  Petitioners must rebut presumption by clear and convincing evidence; the court considers factors under NRS 125C.050(6).  Parents have a fundamental right to care, custody, and control of children. (Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57).

The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the District Court properly applied NRS 125C.050, made findings supported by substantial evidence, and did not violate due process.  Visitation order stands.

 

  1.    Bruchu v. The Eight District Court of Nevada, County of Clark, and the HON. Heidi Almase, District Judge, and Thomas Bruchu, Real Party in Interest, Order Granting Petition, No. 91033-COA (Unpublished Disposition, September 15, 2025)

Tiffanee and Thomas share one minor child, W.B. (born January 2016).  They divorced in August 2020.  The initial decree granted joint legal and physical custody.  Thomas later moved to Utah.  In August 2023 the district court confirmed a stipulated change giving Tiffanee primary physical custody.  In March 2025, Tiffanee and Thomas filed competing motions.  Tiffanee sought return of W.B. from Utah, alleging violation of the custody order.  Thomas sought sole legal and physical custody, citing discovery of explicit photos/videos on W.B.’s phone and ongoing SVU/DFS investigations.  The district court (Heidi Almase) issued an emergency temporary order allowing W.B. to remain in Utah with Thomas. The district court changed custody, and effectively granted relocation without written findings of change in circumstances, best interest analysis, relocation factors, or finding that W.B. was unsafe with Tiffanee.  The court continued the temporary custody arrangement, and set an evidentiary hearing for December 23, 2025 (more than six months in the future). The order included a holiday schedule, but did not address relocation or best interest factors.  Tiffanee filed multiple motions to change custody or stay the order, all of which were denied without hearing.

Tiffanee petitioned for writ of mandamus to vacate the temporary orders, and to reinstate the May 2024 stipulation arguing that the district court abused its discretion by changing custody without findings of best interest factors (NRS 125C.0035), change in circumstances, relocation factors (NRS 125C.007), and that the delay in scheduling the evidentiary hearing was contrary to SCR 251.

In Nevada, Writ of Mandamus controls arbitrary/capricious discretion, or compels performance of a legal duty (NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222).  Temporary custody orders generally are not appealable. (In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441).  Custody decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but legal error or lack of findings are not entitled to deference. (Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445).  Failure to make best interest findings constitutes abuse of discretion.  (Soldo-Allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 9).  Relocation requires findings under NRS 125C.007 (Pelkola v. Pelkola, 137 Nev. 271).  Custody motions must be resolved within six months unless justified. (SCR 251).  An evidentiary hearing set beyond the six-month limit without explanation violates SCR 251.

The Nevada Court of Appeals granted the Writ, vacated the temporary custody order, reinstated the May 2024 stipulated custody order, and ordered that the district court either justify the December 23 hearing date under SCR 251, or reschedule it to comply.  The Court held that nothing in the order prevented the district court from entering emergency orders or expedited hearings if exigent circumstances arose.

Marshal S. Willick
Latest posts by Marshal S. Willick (see all)