Las Vegas Review Journal v. Clark Cty. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., No. 85228, Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition (Unpublished Disposition, Feb. 21, 2024)

Las Vegas Review Journal brought a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging EDCR 5.207, EDCR 5.212, NRS 126.211 and NRS 125.080 on the basis that they allow family court proceedings to be conducted without permitting public access.

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court said that the petitioner has conceded that it has not been precluded from attending a family law proceeding. Therefore, there is no hardship.

Under Doe v. Bryan, 102 Nev. 523, 525, 728 P.2d 443, 444 (1986), the court has consistently required “an actual justiciable controversy as a predicate to judicial relief.”


In re: Parental Rights as to K.G., No. 86707, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Feb. 22, 2024)

The district court (Dollinger) terminated Crystal’s parental rights. Under NRS 128.105(1), in order to terminate parental rights, the district court must find clear and convincing evidence that (1) at least one ground of parental fault exists, and (2) termination is in the child’s best interest.

The Supreme Court affirmed and concluded that substantial evidence supported the district court’s parental fault finding of failure of parental adjustment. Crystal’s own testimony reflected her failure to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of the “plan to reunite the family within 6 months after the date on which [the child] was placed or the plan was commenced.”

The SC found that the district court abused its discretion regarding some hearsay exceptions. However, that error did not warrant reversal. The record also supported the district court’s finding that the child is thriving in foster care and prefers to stay with the foster parents.


Cernak v. Dist. Ct. (Dep’t of Family Serv.), No. 87795, Order Denying Petition (Unpublished Disposition, Feb. 22, 2024)

Katherine C. is the mother of E.C. E.C. reported to a school administrator sexual abuse by Katherine’s live-in boyfriend, who is also the father of E.C.’s younger brother. The Department of Family Services (DFS) filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect against Katherine.

Katherine filed a petition for a writ of mandamus after the district court (Teuton) entered an order substantiating the abuse and neglect petition under NRS Chapter 432B. Katherine cannot appeal the order so the Supreme Court entertained her writ petition.

The SC denied Katherine’s petition. The Court disagreed with Katherine’s arguments that her due process rights were violated. Katherine failed to demonstrate that district court overrode or misapplied the law.

The SC also found that there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s finding that DFS met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the allegation regarding sexual abuse committed by Katherine’s live-in boyfriend and the allegation regarding Katherine’s failure to protect E.C.


In re: Parental Rights as to G.R.S., No. 83605, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, Jan. 22, 2024)

The maternal grandmother reported that Brandon’s minor child (G.R.S.) was abused by Brandon. DFS obtained a court order directing Brandon to relinquish G.R.S. and Brandon complied. During the first 16 months of the protective custody action, Brandon consistently visited G.R.S. and completed the required parenting classes.

DFS moved to terminate Brandon’s parental rights. The district court (Pickard) terminated Brandon’s parental rights as to G.R.S. Brandon appealed. G.R.S. joined Brandon’s arguments on appeal and sought reversal of the district court’s order.

Under NRS 128.105(1), to terminate parental rights the district court must find clear and convincing evidence that (1) at least one ground of parental fault exists and (2) termination is in the child’s best interest.

The Supreme Court found that the parental-fault findings of the district court are not supported by substantial evidence. A parent’s substance abuse alone does not establish parental unfitness. There is a lack of evidence that demonstrates that Brandon’s substance abuse consistently prevented him from properly caring for G.R.S.

Furthermore, the SC agreed with Brandon that the district court erred when it concluded that he did not overcome the presumption that he had only made token efforts to care for G.R.S. Also, the SC was not convinced that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights was in G.R.S.’s best interest.


Rosiak v. Rosiak, No. 86632-COA and 85464-COA, Order Affirming in Part, Vacating in Part and Remanding (Unpublished Disposition, Feb. 22, 2024)


Richard Rosiak and Margarita Rosiak were married and have two children (one is a minor). The district court (Mercer) entered a decree of divorce, an order reducing child support arrears to judgment, and an order awarding attorney fees.

Ultimately, the district court awarded Margarita $3,040,889 in assets and held Margarita responsible for $218,228 of the parties’ debt. The district court awarded Richard $8,764,891 in assets and held Richard responsible for $1,491,647.09 of the parties’ debt.

Richard appealed the district court’s calculation of his child support obligation, award of lump sum alimony to Margarita, decision on the division of community property and debt, and the award of attorney fees to Margarita.

Under the “invited error doctrine,” Richard cannot complain about conclusions relating to his income, since he was the only one with access to the information or had an ability to present evidence regarding it.  Richard induced any error in calculating his income for the purposes of child support by (1) not paying himself a salary, (2) not keeping adequate records, and (3) failing to provide adequate explanation of the records he did provide.

However, Nevada case law clearly entitles Richard to an offset from child support arrears for Social Security benefits received by a child, but NAC 425.150(2) does not require that an offset be given for current child support obligations.

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order regarding Richard’s monthly child support obligation as to the Social Security dependent payment only, the order awarding attorney fees to Margarita, and the district court’s decision that held both Margarita and Richard responsibly for all of the debt associated with the property at 9917 Wiley Burke. The COA affirmed the district court’s remaining rulings.

Marshal S. Willick