ARNOLD VS. ARNOLD (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reviewed the custody award for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding the district court properly weighed the particular facts and circumstances to serve the child's best interest, citing Smith v. Smith, 90 Nev. 422, 529 P.2d 209 (1974), and Nichols v. Nichols, 91 Nev. 479, 537 P.2d 1196 (1975). The court expressly overruled Peavey v. Peavey, 85 Nev. 571, 460 P.2d 110 (1969), abolishing the maternal-preference "tender years" doctrine, reasoning that it conflicted with the best-interest standard and reflected an impermissible sex-based bias, and noting the 1979 amendment to NRS 125.140 (ch. 269, Sec. 2, eff. May 3, 1979) prohibiting any custody preference based solely on a parent's sex. Because the district court made its determination roughly two weeks before the amendment's effective date, the holding rested on the best-interest standard rather than the new statute.

In plain language

Janet and Richard Arnold both sought permanent custody of their two-year-old child after their divorce. The district court first gave the father temporary custody, then, after a full hearing and a detailed report from the Child Custody Division, awarded him permanent custody. The judge acknowledged it was a close call and that both parents loved the child and neither was unfit, but found the child was thriving in the father's home while the mother had admitted that emotional and financial problems from the breakup had at times harmed her relationship with the child. The mother appealed, arguing the judge abused his discretion and that the old "tender years" rule - a presumption that a young child should go to the mother unless she is unfit - required giving custody to her. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed. The court held that the judge had carefully weighed all the facts to serve the child's best interest, which is not an abuse of discretion. Most significantly, the court used this case to abolish the "tender years" doctrine in Nevada. It expressly overruled its earlier decision in Peavey v. Peavey, explaining that a preference for one parent based only on the parent's sex is nothing more than a culturally enforced bias and has no place in custody law. The court noted the Legislature had just amended the statute to bar any custody preference given solely because a parent is the mother or father. The touchstone in every case is the best interest of the child, decided on the particular facts.