New Cases added to MLAW: Two SCT Published: Parental Rights as to G.R.S. & Burdiss; Two COA Unpublished: Cunning & Yu

by | Sep 5, 2024 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

In Re Parental Rights as to G.R.S., 139 Nev. ___, ___ (Adv. Opn. No. 16, July 6, 2023)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a district court order terminating the father’s parental rights as to his minor child.

When the child was removed from the father’s care, the father was abusing prescription drugs and illegal substances. However, at the time of the trial, the father had been sober for months and was successfully participating in the drug court program.

A parent’s substance abuse alone does not establish parental fault based on unfitness. There must be a finding of unfitness supported by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s substance abuse seriously and consistently prevents the parent from providing proper care for the child. In this case, the Court found that such evidence was lacking, therefore, it reversed and remanded the district court’s decision for further proceedings.

 

Cunning v. Cunning, No. 84255-COA, Order Affirming In Part And Reversing In Part (Unpublished Disposition, May 3, 2024)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

The ex-wife challenged the district court’s division of community debt however, the district court equally divided the community assets and debts according to NRS 125.150(1)(b), and separately addressed the fee requests.

The ex-wife also challenged the reimbursement of the ex-husband’s separate property. However, the record shows that the parties had depleted nearly all of their community assets before the divorce and the ex-husband’s income was insufficient to support the parties’ continuing expenses, on the basis of which the court had ordered him to expend funds from his separate property account to support the community after community funds were exhausted, and reserved the issue of reimbursement. Therefore, his separate property account was used to support the community, and he was entitled to reimbursement.

He was also entitled to reimbursement of temporary support paid to the ex-wife where she was ordered to seek gainful employment but did not do so, and did not use her inherited separate property for self-support either.

However, he was not entitled to the $3,500 reimbursement for the two 2000 Honda XRs because he was also awarded the Hondas themselves and the district court awarded this without any supporting evidence in the record that those items had been lost or sold off as part of his efforts to pay community expenses.

The Court of Appeals reversed the portion of the supplemental decree of divorce providing the ex-husband an additional $3,500 reimbursement for the two 2000 Honda XRs awarded to him in the divorce decree and affirmed the remainder of the district court’s orders. Ex-wife was not permitted to resurrect on appeal the waste claims she abandoned at trial.

 

Yu v. Yu, No. 86578-COA, Order Affirming In Part And Dismissing In Part (Unpublished Disposition Apr. 29, 2024)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

In 2015, the district court entered a decree of divorce that ended the couple’s marriage and distributed their community property.  The parties engaged in years of post-divorce motions, after which the ex-husband appealed.

The ex-husband wanted a reversal of the underlying decree of divorce, claiming the district court improperly found that an investment account was community property. However, he did not timely appeal from the decree of divorce, therefore, the COA lacked jurisdiction to consider this challenge to the decree.

Next, the ex-husband challenged the district court’s findings and conclusions from the evidentiary hearing. However, this court will not disturb a district court’s decision when it is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, that challenge failed.

Also, the ex-husband did not provide the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, requiring the appellate court to presume that the transcript supported the district court’s findings regarding the division of property and the enforcement of the decree and post-judgment orders.

 

B.Y. and A.F. v. Dist. Ct. (Burdiss), 140 Nev. ___, ___ (Adv. Opn. No. 32, Apr. 25, 2024)

The two oldest children filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to grant the two grandmothers temporary guardianship.

The district court determined that no emergency was shown, but the Supreme Court disagreed because the children had been living with the grandmothers for several months in fear of returning to their mother and her new partner. Given the children’s history of abuse, their fear might not be completely unfounded. They are also not enrolled in school, which is cause for concern.

The Supreme Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in failing to give the request for a temporary guardianship proper consideration or a a hearing and granted the petition in part.

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