Stanisic v. Shea, No. 84590-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, Apr. 11, 2024)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
The parties have one child together, who was born in 2005. In 2006, the mother (Stanisic), who was receiving public assistance from the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS), initiated paternity and support proceedings in which the district court entered a judgment and order finding Thomas to be the father of the child and setting his child support obligation at $100 a month.
The mother moved to Arizona in 2009 and lost contact with DWSS. She maintained that she told DWSS her new address. She stayed at this address for 11 years and claimed that she did not receive any child support or any other form of contact from DWSS during that time.
In 2021, following the father’s release from incarceration, the mother contacted DWSS to enforce the 2006 child support judgment, adjudicate arrears, and modify the father’s child support obligation since his income changed.
A hearing master scheduled a hearing on the issues of child support modification and arrears, apparently without any underlying motion being filed by anyone.
The agency “audit” for May 2009 (around the time the mother moved to Arizona) through August 2021 (when she contacted DWSS) did not indicate that Shea owed any obligation for child support during that period—listing his monthly amount owed as $0 instead of the $100 set by the 2006 support order.
The hearing master found that Thomas owed a total of $5,809.97 in child support arrears from 2006 to 2021 and setting his current support obligation at $516 a month. During the hearing, the mother questioned where the father’s previous child support payments had gone, but got no answer.
She objected, claiming that there were over $14,000 in missing arrears. The agency responded that no arrears were owed while “one or both” parties were in prison, and that the mother waived any recovery by not being in contact, as a matter of laches. The district court (Banales) affirmed without holding a hearing.
On appeal, the mother argued that she was not apprised of the amount of arrearages DWSS was seeking and why it sought only limited arrearages. DWSS failed to file a proper motion and failed to explain the nature and basis of its arrearages determinations.
The COA rejected all arguments put forward by DWSS as having no authority. Arrears continued to accrue despite incarceration and regardless of whether the agency closed its case. DWSS was entitled to reimbursement only to the extent it paid benefits to the mother during that period. But the Court of Appeals had such little discussion and analysis in the report that the COA found that it could not adequately review the appeal, so it reversed the district court’s child support arrearages determination and remanded for further proceedings.
Wooten v. Wooten, No. 87208-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Apr. 12, 2024)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
The district court entered a decree of divorce, awarding the parties joint legal custody of the child and awarding the father primary physical custody of the child as well as child support.
The mother filed a motion for reconsideration of the child custody and support decisions, claiming inadequate notice and lack of service, and that the child was a resident of Florida. After a UCCJEA conference, the Florida court relinquished any claim to custody jurisdiction; the Nevada court ultimately provided the father with primary physical custody and final authority for major legal custody matters. The mother appealed.
First, she argued that the district court erred by failing to dismiss the complaint because the father failed to effectuate service of process. However, because she did not seek dismissal of this matter and instead sought adjudication of the issues on the merits, she effectively consented to the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over her and waived her ability to seek dismissal based upon a failure to effectuate service of process.
Second, she argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction concerning the child custody matters because the child had permanently relocated to Florida and only visited Nevada on a temporary basis. However, both the Florida and Nevada courts recognized that Nevada was the more appropriate forum because this case had been filed first in Nevada, there had already been a custody order filed in the Nevada case and the Florida court declined to exercise jurisdiction. Therefore, the Nevada court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to NRS 125A.305(1)(b).
Third, she argued that the district court abused its discretion by awarding the ex-husband primary physical custody of the child because its findings were not supported by the evidence and its analysis of the best-interest factors were flawed.
However, the district court’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. The district court considered both parties and which party would better serve the child’s best interest. The court concluded that the father would be better for the child especially because he was better able to communicate with the mother to meet the needs of the child and to provide for the child’s physical, developmental, and emotional needs. In the testimony he focused more on the child’s needs than the mother did.
Fourth, the mother argued that the district abused its discretion by awarding the father final decision-making authority concerning important educational or urgent medical decisions. However, the district court correctly concluded that the father should have that authority because it appropriately considered and evaluated the testimony of both parties.
Fifth, the mother challenged the district court determination regarding child support. However, because the father was awarded primary physical custody of the child, the district court was required pursuant to NAC 425.115(2) to determine the mother’s child support obligation.
Sixth, the mother argued that the district court abused its discretion by rejecting her request for child support arrears. However, since the father financially supported the child even after the child’s relocation, the mother was not entitled to arrears.
Last, the mother argued that the district court abused its discretion by denying her request for an award of attorney fees. However, the district court determined that the father did not proceed in bad faith, therefore, the mother was not entitled to an attorney fee award pursuant to NRS 125C.0689.
The COA affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding the ex-husband primary physical custody.
Silva Filho v. Belay Da Silva, No. 86120-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, Apr. 19, 2024)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
The parties never married and had two children born in 200 and 2007, who lived with mom while dad moved overseas to work.
Mom filed a complaint for custody and back and future support in 2013. Dad filed a complaint, which was consolidated, agreeing to pay a specific sum of support, but never responded to mom’s complaint leading to a default order which provided for custody but not support.
In 2016, dad moved to Las Vegas and moved to modify custody; eventually, the court addressed custody and current support, but not arrears, telling mom verbally to file a case with the D.A. or file a schedule of arrears, which language never made it to the written order.
In 2022, the parties returned to court and after an evidentiary hearing the court amended the 2016 order to add the supp0ort language omitted earlier, nunc pro tunc. Dad asserted a statute of limitations defense, which was denied, and arrears were ordered. Dad appealed.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting child support arrears for the period of December 2013 through July 2016 because substantial evidence supported the district court’s decision to enforce the agreement between the parties. There was adequate evidence of a verbal agreement between the two parties where the father was supposed to pay child support, and his initial pleadings constituted an admission that he was supposed to pay support under
There is also no statute of limitations problem here because the mother initiated an action for child support by filing a complaint for custody in 2013 and served dad, tolling any statute of limitations under NRS 125B.050(1), including for four prior years support under NRS 125B.030.
While the district court’s conclusion that the mother was entitled to arrears is proper, the parties agree that the district court erred in calculating the child support arrears and the interest. The case was remanded for amended calculations.
In re: Guardianship of Y.U.G., No. 87635-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, Apr. 19, 2024)
DO NOT CITE THIS CASE
Y.U.G., a minor child, appealed from a district court order denying a petition for the appointment of a guardian.
After the child was 10 months old, his parents gave him to his aunt to take care of him. The aunt moved him from Las Vegas to Compton, California. The aunt returned with the child to Las Vegas to obtain his birth certificate and social security card and to file a petition for guardianship. However, the district court denied the petition because the court claimed it lacked jurisdiction since “California is the home state.”
On appeal, the child, joined by his parents and his aunt, argued that the district court erred in finding that Nevada lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings because Nevada had been his home state and his parents continued to reside in Nevada.
Pursuant to NRS 125A.305(1)(a), the district court had jurisdiction over the guardianship if Nevada “was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceedings and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State.” Here, the child lived in Nevada for more than 10 months, the aunt filed the guardianship petition 3 months after the child moved to California, and the child’s parents remained in Las Vegas. Therefore, according to NRS 125A.305(1)(a), the district court had jurisdiction over the guardianship.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings because Nevada did have jurisdiction over the guardianship.
- New Cases added to MLAW: Two SCT Published: Parental Rights as to G.R.S. & Burdiss; Two COA Unpublished: Cunning & Yu - September 5, 2024
- New Cases added to MLAW: Five COA Unpublished: Hacham, Kellogg, Sarnelli, Carney, & McPherson - August 10, 2024
- New Cases added to MLAW: Four COA Unpublished: Stanisic, Wooten, Silva, & Guardianship of Y.U.G. - August 8, 2024