In the Matter of the Guardianship of M.J.M. and F.M.M., No. 85423, Order Affirming in Part and Dismissing in Part (Unpublished Disposition, April 21, 2023)

The natural father of two minor children, appealed a district court order denying a motion to set aside an order appointing guardian, appointing a co-guardian, and awarding attorney fees.

Respondent is the children’s maternal grandmother who was appointed as the children’s guardian in 2018. Later, respondent’s husband was also appointed as the children’s co-guardian specifically to obtain better health insurance for the children.

The Court was not convinced by appellant’s argument that the district court abused its discretion due to defects in the petition for guardianship by respondent’s husband.  The Court basically found harmless error and was satisfied that the reason of granting the petition is so that the children could obtain better health insurance.

Further, the SC dismissed the appeal as to attorney fees as there was no final order ripe for appeal.


Rose v. Rose, No. 84295, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, April 27, 2023)

After a complex procedural history involving three different judges, the district court entered an order modifying the divorce decree to delete a provision related to respondent’s retirement account.

Appellant appealed for an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court disagreed thus affirming the order. The SC found substantial evidence to support the district court’s findings and rejected appellant’s argument that the district court erred by not finding that the SBP was an “omitted asset” of community property under the prior case law under Henson stating that survivorship benefits are not property.


In the Matter of the Guardianship of: B.J.M., No. 85983, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, June 16, 2023)

Texas closed a dependency action after granting “Stacey” (a Texas resident) primary custody of B.J.M. In 2022, B.J.M resided in Nevada with his paternal aunt, Tonja Ochonma. Tonja filed a guardianship petition which was opposed by Stacey who argued that Texas has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. The district court disagreed and granted Tonja’s guardianship petition. Stacy appealed.

The (UCCJEA) has been adopted by Nevada and Texas and holds that Nevada cannot modify another state’s child custody determination absent narrow exceptions.

As Stacey still resides in Texas, no Nevada court, on its own, outside of an emergency situation, can modify Texas’s child custody determination or conclude that Texas does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.  Nevada cannot have jurisdiction until a Texas court specifically concludes that it does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.


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