New Cases added to MLAW: Two SCT Unpublished: Parental Rights as to D.E. & Randall; Three COA Unpublished: Anderson, Carlson, & Teshome

by | Sep 26, 2024 | Nevada Family Law Appeals | 0 comments

In Re: Parental Rights As To D.E., No. 85350, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Apr. 19, 2024)

In order to terminate parental rights, the district court must find (1) at least one ground of parental fault exists, and (2) that termination is in the child’s best interest. NRS 128.105(1); In re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000).

Here, substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding of parental fault based on failure to adjust. Parents, Ashleigh and David, both made minimal progress toward their case plans, specifically as to the goals of refraining from domestic violence and attending to M.E.’s personal needs, with both failing to move past supervised visitation. The district court properly applied the statutory presumptions that terminating both parents’ rights was in M.E.’s best interest because M.E. had been out of their care for 36 months at the time of the termination hearing. Also, M.E. has been living with the foster mother for most of her life, is thriving in the foster mother’s care, is fully integrated into the foster family, and the foster mother is committed to adopting M.E.

The Court affirmed the district court’s decision to terminate the parental rights of both parents.

 

Anderson v. Morales, No. 86327-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, May 17, 2024)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, which stated that the father is expected to pay a certain amount of child support.

The district court correctly applied NAC 425.140’s formula for calculating child support, therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the mother’s motion to modify child support.

Also, the evidence supported the mother’s assertion that the father’s income increased by 20 percent because it actually increased by more than 20 percent. Therefore, the district court’s finding concerning the change in the father’s income was supported by substantial evidence.

 

Randall v. State of California, No. 85049, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, May 30, 2024)

Randall (father) and Caldwell (mother) have two children together. A Nevada district court entered a support order for one of the children in 2020, and a California court entered a support order for the other child in 2017. When the California order was registered in Nevada, the father filed the motion to modify child support because he argued that the parties’ financial circumstances had changed. The matter was referred to a master, who rejected this argument.

Substantial evidence supported the master’s finding that the father submitted insufficient evidence to show a change in circumstances occurred. Therefore, the father’s argument failed because he failed to show that the circumstances have changed which would warrant an alteration in child support.

 

Carlson v. Carlson, No. 85643-COA, Order of Affirmance (Unpublished Disposition, Apr. 29, 2024)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

Bradley (ex-husband) and Teresa (ex-wife) were divorced in 2010 through a divorce decree entered based on the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA). The MSA contained a provision regarding payment of their one child’s college tuition costs which said, “Husband and Wife agree to equally share tuition costs associated with their minor child’s college attendance, should the child attend college.”

Bradley refused to make certain payments and Teresa covered them for the child.  The district court ruled that Teresa was entitled to reimbursement of the tuition expenses she fronted for Bradley and that going forward both parties must pay their half of their child’s college expenses as they become due.

On appeal, the ex-husband challenged the district court’s ruling, however, he did not provide the hearing transcripts. Therefore, the court presumed that the missing transcripts supported the district court’s findings.

 

Teshome v. Jiru, No. 87228-COA, Order of Reversal and Remand (Unpublished Disposition, Jun. 21, 2024)

DO NOT CITE THIS CASE

Teshome (the father) appealed from a district court order modifying child custody and granting Jiru (the mother) permission to relocate. The parties were never married, but they share one minor child together. In 2022, the district court entered an initial child custody decree, which established that the parties would share joint legal and physical custody of their child. In 2023, the mother filed a motion in order to move to Virginia with the child. The district court granted the motion because the court found that the mother had a sensible, good faith reason for the move, the move was not intended to deprive the father of his parenting time, and the move would benefit both the mother and the child because the move would help improve the mother’s mental health.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court abused its discretion in evaluating whether the mother demonstrated the threshold factors for relocation because the district court did not properly analyze whether the relocation was in the child’s best interests. Specifically, the district court made conclusory statements without actually establishing the move would be in the child’s best interests. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded to the district court.

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