1. Petriuc v. Matas / FKA Petriuc, No. 88710-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Nov. 14, 2024)
Petriuc and Matas divorced in 2014. Matas was awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of their two children. Matas relocated to Arizona without Petriuc’s knowledge and initiated guardianship proceedings, placing the children under her parents’ guardianship.
In 2020, Petriuc filed a motion to modify custody, citing Matas’s instability and interference with his parenting time. In 2022, the district court found a substantial change in circumstances and awarded joint legal custody, with Matas retaining primary physical custody. Petriuc was granted expanded parenting time, including full summer breaks. In 2023, Petriuc filed a second motion to modify custody, citing successful reunification and documentation of the prior guardianship. Matas filed an unopposed countermotion to modify parenting time. The district court (Michael Montero) denied Petriuc’s motion and granted Matas’ request for four weeks of summer parenting time.
Petriuc appealed arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to modify custody; and the district court erred in granting Matas’s unopposed countermotion to modify parenting time.
In Nevada, a district court may modify primary physical custody only when: (1) There has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child; and (2) The modification is in the child’s best interest. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 150 (2007). In determining the child’s best interest, the court must consider and make specific findings on the factors listed in: NRS 125C.0035(4). A district court’s custody determination will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Bautista v. Picone, 134 Nev. 334, 336 (2018). Failure to oppose a motion may be construed as consent to its merits. DCR 13(3).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the custody modification. Petriuc failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances or that relocation was in the children’s best interest. The district court did not err in granting Matas’ unopposed parenting time modification, especially where it found the change to be in the children’s best interest.
2. Burns A/K/A Harness v. Reed, No. 88200-COA, Order Dismissing Appeal in Part and Affirming in Part (Unpublished Disposition, January 15, 2025)
Harness and Reed are the parents of A.R. In 2011, Reed filed for custody after learning that Harness’ mother had temporary guardianship due to Harness’ drug abuse. Harness was awarded primary physical custody; Reed received increasing parenting time over the years. In 2021, Harness was arrested for methamphetamine possession, and DCFS found her home unsafe. Reed was granted temporary custody. In 2022, Harness tested positive for methamphetamine and missed several drug tests. In January 2023, the district court (Aimee Banales) awarded Reed primary physical custody and ordered Harness to undergo monthly drug testing. Harness later tested positive again and missed multiple tests. Reed filed for contempt and reimbursement of medical expenses. Harness filed a motion to modify custody, which was denied without a hearing.
Harness appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying Harness’ motion to modify custody without a hearing; purported to appeal the contempt and drug testing orders; and that the district court erred in granting Reed’s unopposed motion for reimbursement of medical expenses.
In Nevada, a district court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify custody only if the movant makes a prima facie showing of: (1) A substantial change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare; and (2) That modification is in the child’s best interest. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145 (2007); Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1 (2022). General, vague, or conclusory allegations unsupported by affidavits or declarations do not warrant a hearing. Myers v. Haskins, 138 Nev. 553 (2022). Contempt orders are not directly appealable unless included in an otherwise appealable order. Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe HOA, 116 Nev. 646 (2000); Yu v. Yu, 133 Nev. 737 (2017). Arguments not raised in the district court are waived on appeal. Old Aztec Mine v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49 (1981).
The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to modify custody without a hearing because: Harness failed to make a prima facie showing; and the contempt and drug testing orders were not appealable. The district court did not err in granting Reed’s unopposed motion for reimbursement, as Harness failed to respond.
3. Ruelas v. Ruelas, No. 88567-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, December 18, 2024)
Brooke filed for divorce from Abram in October 2023, initially indicating Abram was incarcerated. She later filed an affidavit of service stating that a sheriff’s deputy served Abram by leaving the documents with his aunt. At a January 2024 hearing, Brooke admitted she was unsure whether Abram had been properly served. Brooke filed a motion for alternate service, which was denied for lack of an affidavit of due diligence. She later submitted two affidavits of attempted service, including one from Joe Zavala, who claimed he personally informed Abram of the documents and handed them to him, which Abram threw on the ground. The district court (Regina McConnell) issued an order to show cause for failure to serve and, after receiving no response, dismissed the case without prejudice under NRCP 4(e)(2).
Brooke appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her complaint for failure to effectuate service within the 120-day period.
Under NRCP 4(e)(1), a plaintiff must serve the summons and complaint within 120 days of filing unless the court grants an extension. Under NRCP 4(e)(2), if service is not made within that time, the court must dismiss the action without prejudice unless good cause is shown. Personal service may be effected by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the individual personally. NRCP 4.2(a)(1).
The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without fully evaluating the affidavit of attempted service submitted by Brooke.
4. Backman v. Gelbman, No. 86396-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, November 20, 2024)
Backman and Gelbman have litigated child support since the birth of their child in 2013. In 2020, Gelbman retired and successfully moved to modify child support to $0 based on a 20% decrease in income. The court imputed equal income to both parties. Backman filed several motions to modify child support between 2020 and 2023, citing changes in her income and Gelbman’s alleged additional income. In February 2023, Backman filed another motion, providing financial documentation and testimony showing a significant decrease in her income. The family court master denied the motion without conducting a substantive review, and the district court (Aimee Banales) affirmed.
Backman appealed arguing that the district court abused its discretion by affirming the master’s denial of Backman’s motion to modify child support without conducting a substantive review under NRS 125B.145(4).
In Nevada, a child support order may be modified only upon a finding of: (1) A change in circumstances since the entry of the order; and (2) That modification is in the best interest of the child. Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 431 (2009). A 20% change in gross monthly income constitutes a change in circumstances requiring a review of the child support order. NRS 125B.145(4). The controlling order for determining a 20% change is the most recent substantive order setting child support and making income findings—not subsequent denials of modification. A party seeking modification must present prima facie evidence of changed circumstances to trigger a substantive review. Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540 (1993); Myers v. Haskins, 138 Nev. 553 (2022).
The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct a substantive review of the child support order after Backman presented prima facie evidence of a 20% decrease in income.
5. In the Matter of the Guardianship of M.J.V., No. 86816-COA & No. 87710, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, May 22, 2025)
M.J.V. was born in 2017 with a congenital arm condition. Due to her parents’ substance abuse, her maternal grandmother Brenda and step-grandfather Randy raised her and were appointed guardians. After M.J.V.’s father Kameron became sober, he regained custody. Brenda supported the transition and arranged therapy for M.J.V. Kameron died in a work accident. His mother, Kelly Varden (paternal grandmother), petitioned for and was granted temporary guardianship. Brenda and Randy later filed a competing guardianship petition. A three-day evidentiary hearing was held. The GAL and ACORN representative recommended Kelly be appointed guardian. The district court (Robert Lane) awarded guardianship to Brenda, citing her superior ability to manage M.J.V.’s medical needs, better living conditions, and greater likelihood of facilitating a relationship with Kelly.
Kelly appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in awarding guardianship to Brenda despite recommendations favoring her; that the court erred in its factual findings regarding the parties’ fitness and ability to care for M.J.V.; and that the use of the term “sole legal custody” was improper in the guardianship context.
In Nevada, a guardianship may be granted only upon clear and convincing evidence that it is necessary and in the best interest of the minor. NRS 159A.055(1); NRS 159A.061(9). A parent or guardian is presumed unfit if they cannot provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education, or pose a safety risk. NRS 159A.061(4)(a)-(b). The district court’s factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157 (2004); Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660 (2009). The court may consider—but is not bound by—recommendations from a GAL or child advocate. NRS 159A.061(6)(e). Guardianship grants authority to make decisions for the minor, functionally similar to legal custody, but the term “legal custody” is not technically applicable. NRS 159A.079.
The Court of Appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Its findings were supported by substantial evidence. The court properly weighed conflicting evidence and made credibility determinations. The use of “sole legal custody” was harmless error, as guardianship inherently includes decision-making authority.
