BOYD VS. HINES, JR. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Standard of review: The Court of Appeals reviews a child custody decision for an abuse of discretion, Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007), and will affirm the district court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence, id. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. 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). A court may award one parent primary physical custody if it determines that joint physical custody is not in the best interest of the child. NRS 125C.003(1). The appellate court will not reweigh evidence or credibility determinations, see Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244; Quintero v. McDonald, 116 Nev. 1181, 1183, 14 P.3d 522, 523 (2000), and presumes the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining the child's best interest if it made substantial factual findings, see Culbertson v. Culbertson, 91 Nev. 230, 233-34, 533 P.2d 768, 770 (1975). Application: The district court expressly considered the best interest factors under NRS 125C.0035(4) and found several factors favored awarding Hines primary physical custody. Although the court acknowledged Boyd was the victim of domestic violence, it found ongoing domestic violence between Boyd and her former boyfriend occurred in the presence of the child, that the child was present when a firearm was discharged during a domestic-violence incident, that the child was placed in foster care for six months due to the risk of danger, and that Boyd demonstrated a lack of capacity to protect the child. The court also found Boyd interfered with Hines' parenting time and would not have permitted the child's summer stay with Hines absent court intervention, noted the interstate travel the arrangement would require, the child's enjoyment of time with Hines' family in Texas, the child's strong bond with Boyd, and Boyd's lengthy criminal history including an arrest for child abuse and neglect. The Court of Appeals held these findings were supported by substantial evidence, declined to second-guess the district court's resolution of conflicting evidence or credibility findings, and discerned no abuse of discretion. Judicial bias: Boyd's bias claim failed because she did not demonstrate that the court's decisions were based on knowledge acquired outside the proceedings, and the decision did not otherwise reflect "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 188 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court also cited In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988) (rulings made during official judicial proceedings generally "do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification"), and Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213 233 (2009) (burden is on the party asserting bias to establish sufficient factual grounds for disqualification), overruled on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 6, 501 P.3d 980, 984 (2022), abrogated in part on other grounds by Killebrew v. State ex rel. Donohue, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 48, 535 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2023).

In plain language

This case is a custody dispute between two parents. David D. Hines, Jr., filed a second amended complaint asking the court to declare him the child's father (DNA testing showed he was), to put his name on the child's birth certificate, and to give him sole legal and physical custody. He alleged that Boyd had a history of domestic violence and that child protective services had become involved with the child. Boyd did not dispute that Hines was the child's biological father, but she asked for sole legal and physical custody herself and pointed out that Hines lived outside Nevada, in Houston, Texas. The parents agreed on some parenting issues but not all, so the district court held an evidentiary hearing - a court proceeding at which witnesses testify and evidence is presented. Hines testified about learning he was the child's father through DNA testing, about child protective services removing the child from Boyd's custody, and about Boyd refusing to cooperate with court-ordered parenting time in Houston. Boyd testified about her criminal history, including a prior charge for child abuse and neglect and a felony grand larceny conviction, and about a violent incident with a former boyfriend that led child protective services to remove the child from her care for a time. She explained that she no longer had contact with the former boyfriend and that the child had been returned to her. The district court gave the parents joint legal custody but awarded Hines primary physical custody, meaning the child would live primarily with Hines in Texas. The court walked through the "best interest of the child" factors that Nevada law requires courts to consider. It acknowledged that Boyd was the victim of domestic violence, but it also found there had been ongoing domestic violence between Boyd and her former boyfriend that occurred in front of the child - including an incident in which a firearm was discharged - that the child had spent six months in foster care because of the risk of danger, and that Boyd had demonstrated a lack of capacity to protect the child. The court also found Boyd had interfered with Hines' parenting time. On appeal, Boyd argued the district court's findings were not supported by the evidence, that the court failed to properly weigh the required factors, that it did not understand she was the victim in the domestic-violence incident, that it did not let her participate in decision-making about the child, and that it did not consider the disruption of moving the child out of Nevada. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments. Appellate courts review custody decisions only for an "abuse of discretion" - a deferential standard - and will not re-weigh evidence or second-guess a trial judge's assessments of witness credibility. Because the district court's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion. Boyd also argued that the district court judge was biased against her. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument too, explaining that Boyd had not shown the court's decisions were based on knowledge acquired outside the proceedings or that they reflected "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." The custody decree was affirmed.