BRANDES VS. PICTUM (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's child custody modification for an abuse of discretion, subject to the requirement that "the district court must have reached its conclusions for the appropriate reasons." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241-42 (2007). The controlling substantive standard is that 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). Applying Davis, the court reiterated that a custody order must include specific findings of fact tying its findings on the best interest factors to the custody determination made, and that without specific findings and an adequate explanation, the reviewing court cannot determine whether the determination was appropriate. Davis, 131 Nev. at 451-52, 352 P.3d at 1143. On the record here, the district court's 21-page order recounted the parties' testimony and made best-interest findings: it found many factors neutral, commended the parties' ability to coparent, recognized Lacey's history of opioid addiction, noted the child's desire to continue living with Desmon, found three factors favored Desmon, and found no factors favored Lacey. The court determined that neither party "established that the other is incapable of adequately caring for the child for 146 days per year," and summarily concluded that "[i]t is in the best interests of the child that the parties be awarded joint physical custody." The Court of Appeals held that, notwithstanding these findings, the order offered no explanation connecting the best-interest findings to the ultimate custody determination. Because the district court "failed to tie its ultimate custody determination to the findings regarding the best interests of the child," the appellate court concluded the district court abused its discretion. See Davis, 131 Nev. at 451, 352 P.3d at 1143 (requiring the district court to "tie the child's best interest, as informed by specific, relevant findings respecting the [best interest factors] and any other relevant factors, to the custody determination made"). The court reversed and remanded, directing the district court on remand to provide additional information and analysis connecting its best-interest findings to its ultimate custody determination. See id. at 454, 352 P.3d at 1145 (reversing where "none of the district court's oral or written observations explain why the district court ruled as it did"). The court noted that arguments not specifically addressed either did not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition.

In plain language

Desmon Brandes and Lacey Pictum (now Lacey Krynzel) were never married but have one child together, born in 2007. In 2011, they agreed to share joint legal custody, with Lacey having primary physical custody and Desmon paying $400 per month in child support. Because Lacey had struggled with opioid addiction, their agreement said Desmon would become the primary physical custodian if Lacey relapsed. According to the opinion, Lacey did relapse, and Desmon served as the child's primary physical custodian from late 2011 until 2015, while Lacey had supervised parenting time. In 2015, Lacey married and says she has been clean from opioids since that year. After that, the child spent alternating weekends and summer time with Lacey. This arrangement continued until March 2020, when schools closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the parties agreed the child would stay with Lacey on her summer schedule until school resumed. Also in March 2020, Lacey applied for welfare benefits, which prompted the district attorney's office to open a case to enforce Desmon's child support obligation and collect back payments. Desmon opposed that effort and filed his own motion, saying he had actually been the primary custodian for years and asking the court to change the custody order. He argued that circumstances had substantially changed and that, since Lacey appeared to have been sober for years, joint physical custody would be best for the child. During the case, Desmon submitted text messages and a video from the child (then 14) expressing worry that Lacey was using drugs again, describing erratic driving and "zone out" episodes. The court ordered Lacey to take a drug test, which showed trace amounts of THC but was negative for opioids and other substances. The court then set an evidentiary hearing and told the parties to keep their current schedule for the time being. The child later told Lacey she preferred to live with Desmon until Lacey "got better," and with Lacey's permission lived with Desmon for the five months before the hearing. Because of this, Desmon changed his request and asked for primary physical custody. After a hearing where both parents testified, the district court issued a 21-page order. It found that the 2011 order should be modified and awarded the parents joint physical custody with a 50/50 split. Desmon appealed, agreeing that the old order should be changed but arguing the court was wrong to order joint custody rather than give him primary custody, given the family's history, Lacey's history of substance abuse, and the child's stated preference. The Court of Appeals reversed. It explained that when a court decides custody, it must not only make findings about the "best interest" factors but must also explain how those findings led to the final custody decision. Here, the court noted, the district court did make detailed findings — including that Lacey has a history of opioid addiction, that the child wanted to live with Desmon, that three factors favored Desmon, and that no factors favored Lacey — but never explained how those findings led to its conclusion that joint custody was best. Because the district court did not connect its findings to its ultimate decision, the Court of Appeals concluded it abused its discretion, reversed the order, and sent the case back so the district court could provide that missing explanation.