BELEN VS. CHAPMAN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision to exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion, citing M.C. Multi-Family Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assocs., Ltd., 124 Nev. 901, 913, 193 P.3d 536, 544 (2008), and noting that the exercise of discretion will not be disturbed "absent a showing of palpable abuse." Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Nance v. Ferraro, 134 Nev. 152, 156, 418 P.3d 679, 683 (Ct. App. 2018). The court restated the two-part modification standard from Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 3, 501 P.3d 980, 982 (2022), abrogated in part on other grounds by Killebrew v. State ex rel. Donohue, 139 Nev. 401, 404-05, 535 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2023): the movant must show "(1) there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child, and (2) the child's best interest is served by the modification." For relocation, the parent must satisfy NRS 125C.007(1) and (2). Johnson v. Bennett, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 35, 575 P.3d 1023, 1030 (Ct. App. 2025). The sole consideration in a custody determination is the best interest of the child. NRS 125C.0035(1); Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 451, 352 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015); see also NRS 125C.007(1)(b). District courts must consider the best interest factors when deciding whether to modify custody and grant relocation. Nance, 134 Nev. at 161, 418 P.3d at 687; see also Monahan v. Hogan, 138 Nev. 58, 67-68, 507 P.3d 588, 595 (Ct. App. 2022). On the central issue, the court applied its domestic-violence precedents. Citing Soldo-Allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 565 P.3d 842, 844 (Ct. App. 2025), it reiterated that "[d]omestic violence allegations must be carefully considered in child custody proceedings." Under Nance, 134 Nev. at 163, 418 P.3d at 688, although a party cannot use domestic violence evidence known to the parties or the court at the time of the prior custody order to establish a substantial change in circumstances, such evidence may be considered in the best interest analysis. Quoting Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 105, 86 P.3d 1042, 1047 (2004), the court stressed that "[t]he court must hear all information regarding domestic violence in order to determine the child's best interests." Thus the pre-decree evidence should have been heard in evaluating best interest under NRS 125C.0035(4)(k). Applying these standards, the court found an abuse of discretion: the district court sustained Morgan's objection and declined to consider domestic violence incidents predating the 2019 order, contrary to Castle's directive to hear all such information. The court also observed that, although cross-examination elicited testimony from Kiara that Morgan put her "in a chokehold with my daughter in 2018" and spit in her face during a 2019 exchange, the district court's order neither discussed a 2018 chokehold incident nor a 2019 spitting incident, and made no specific findings about them. Given the exclusion of some domestic violence information and the absence of written findings regarding the alleged pre-decree conduct as it bore on the child's best interest, the court could not conclude on the record that the district court would have reached the same result had it considered all the evidence. See Soldo-Allesio, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 565 P.3d at 850; cf. Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. 446, 465, 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010) (harmless error does not warrant reversal). The court reversed and remanded for an additional evidentiary hearing at which the parties may present evidence regarding alleged incidents predating the 2019 custody order, with the district court directed to make appropriate findings as to how those allegations bear on the child's best interest under NRS 125C.0035(4)(k) or the custodial presumption under NRS 125C.0035(5). The court expressed no opinion on the merits of Kiara's motion and, in light of its disposition, did not address the parties' remaining arguments.

In plain language

Kiara Belen and Morgan Chapman were never married but have one child together, born in 2017. In 2019 they agreed to share joint legal and physical custody, and the district court entered a custody decree reflecting that agreement. In November 2024, Kiara asked the court to change the arrangement so she would have primary physical custody and could move with the child to Puerto Rico, where her fiancé lives. Morgan opposed the request. At an evidentiary hearing - a court proceeding where witnesses testify and evidence is presented - several people testified, including Kiara, her fiancé, Morgan, and Morgan's mother. When Kiara tried to present testimony about domestic violence she said Morgan committed before the 2019 custody decree, Morgan objected. The district court agreed with Morgan and refused to consider that older evidence, ruling it was not relevant to the present custody dispute. After the hearing, the district court found that Kiara had shown a "substantial change in circumstances" (a legal requirement to revisit custody) based on her desire to relocate. But weighing the factors the law uses to decide what is best for a child, the court concluded it was not in the child's best interest to give Kiara primary custody or to allow the move to Puerto Rico. Kiara appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. It explained that Nevada law requires courts to hear all information about domestic violence when deciding what is in a child's best interest - even domestic violence that happened before an earlier custody order. While such older evidence cannot be used to prove the "substantial change in circumstances" needed to reopen custody, it can and must be considered as part of deciding what serves the child's best interest. Because the district court refused to hear the pre-2019 allegations and did not make written findings about certain incidents that did come out during the hearing, the appellate court could not be sure the result would have been the same had all the evidence been considered. The appellate court sent the case back to the district court for an additional hearing so both sides can present evidence about the alleged pre-2019 domestic violence, and so the district court can make proper findings about how those allegations bear on the child's best interest. The court emphasized it was taking no position on whether Kiara should ultimately win her motion - only that the additional hearing was required.