BUTLER VS. BUTLER (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reversed an order modifying custody that rested solely on the "tender years" doctrine of Peavey v. Peavey, 85 Nev. 571, 460 P.2d 110 (1969). Without reaching the appellant's challenge to the validity and constitutionality of Peavey, the court held, per Adams v. Adams, 86 Nev. 62, 464 P.2d 458 (1970), that the standards of Murphy v. Murphy, 84 Nev. 710, 447 P.2d 664 (1968), govern modification of child custody and that Peavey was not controlling in that context. The matter was remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion. (This decision preceded the same court's later abolition of the tender years doctrine in Arnold v. Arnold, 95 Nev. 951, 604 P.2d 109 (1979).)

In plain language

When the Butlers divorced in 1976, they were given joint legal custody of their two children. The father later moved to modify the decree to get sole custody. The district court granted custody to the mother, relying solely on the old "tender years" doctrine from Peavey v. Peavey - the presumption that young children belong with their mother. The father appealed, attacking the validity and constitutionality of the Peavey rule. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed without reaching those constitutional arguments. It held that the tender years doctrine of Peavey does not control a request to modify custody. Instead, under Adams v. Adams and Murphy v. Murphy, modification of child custody is governed by the standards set out in Murphy. Because the district court relied only on Peavey, the order was reversed and the case sent back for proceedings under the correct standard.