CARRERA VS. PETERSON (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's child custody decision for abuse of discretion, which occurs only when "no reasonable judge could reach a similar conclusion under the same circumstances." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007); In re Guardianship of Rubin, 137 Nev. 288, 294, 491 P.3d 1, 6 (2021) (quoting Leavitt v. Siems, 130 Nev. 503, 509, 330 P.3d 1, 5 (2014)). Factual findings are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence - evidence a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. Modification of a physical custody arrangement requires the movant to demonstrate "(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." Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 5, 501 P.3d 980, 983 (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 sole consideration is the best interest of the child. NRS 125C.0035(1); Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 451, 352 P.3d 1139, 1148 (2015). The NRS 125C.0035(4) factors are non-exhaustive. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 243. The court presumes proper exercise of discretion. Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1226-27 (2004). Scheduling and hearing procedures are within the trial court's sound discretion. Zupancic v. Sierra Vista Recreation, 97 Nev. 187, 192, 625 P.2d 1177, 1180 (1981); Matter of J.B., 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 39, 550 P.3d 333, 339 (2024). Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be disturbed absent palpable abuse. M.C. Multi-Family Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assocs., Ltd., 124 Nev. 901, 913, 193 P.3d 536, 544 (2008). As to the excluded 9-1-1 recordings, authentication is a condition precedent to admissibility. NRS 52.015(1); Talley v. State, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 61, 580 P.3d 101, 108 (2025) (a court "must first determine the authenticity of a proposed piece of evidence" before addressing relevancy or hearsay). Because Carrera failed to identify the callers or argue error, he did not show abuse of discretion. His remaining evidentiary claims were not cogently argued and were rejected under Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). On the requests for admission, due process requires an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner. Mesi v. Mesi, 136 Nev. 748, 750, 478 P.3d 366, 369 (2020). Discovery matters lie within the district court's discretion. Matter of Adoption of Minor Child, 118 Nev. 962, 968, 60 P.3d 485, 489 (2002). Ordinarily, untimely responses result in matters being deemed admitted. Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 741, 856 P.2d 1386, 1389 (1993); NRCP 36(a)(3). However, discovery sanctions barring consideration of evidence are disfavored in custody matters, particularly those involving domestic violence allegations. Soldo-Allesio, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 565 P.3d at 852; cf. Blanco v. Blanco, 129 Nev. 723, 730, 311 P.3d 1170, 1174 (2013). The court held that to the extent the district court erred by not deeming the admissions admitted, the error was harmless because Carrera was permitted to question Peterson on the same subject matter and the court decided the matter on its merits. Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. 446, 465, 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010) (movant must show that but for the error a different result might reasonably have been reached); see also Teamer v. Summers, 89296-COA, 2026 WL 1263877, at *5-7 (Nev. Ct. App. May 7, 2026) (Order of Affirmance). On domestic violence, the court distinguished the best interest factor from the rebuttable presumption. Domestic violence is a best interest factor under NRS 125C.0035(4)(k) and, if found by clear and convincing evidence, creates a rebuttable presumption against primary or joint physical custody in the person who engaged in it under NRS 125C.0035(5). See Soldo-Allesio, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 565 P.3d at 848 n.5. The presumption did not apply because, by the statute's plain language, it applies only where the domestic violence was committed by a parent or another person seeking custody, and Daniel was neither. As to the best interest analysis, the district court recounted the evidence, found by a preponderance that domestic violence occurred, and properly considered it, weighing that factor in Carrera's favor. Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 105, 86 P.3d 1042, 1047 (2004); Myers v. Haskins, 138 Nev. 553, 560, 513 P.3d 527, 534 (Ct. App. 2022). The district court nonetheless found primary physical custody with Peterson served N.P.'s best interest based on her suitability to address his special needs, his close relationship with Peterson and Daniel, and the consistency and predictability they provided. The Court of Appeals held these findings were supported by substantial evidence and declined to reweigh evidence or credibility. Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 365-66, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009); In re J.D.N., 128 Nev. 462, 477, 283 P.3d 842, 852 (2012); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 91, 225 P.3d 1273, 1276 (2010); In re Parental Rights as to C.J.M., 118 Nev. 724, 732, 58 P.3d 188, 194 (2002). On bias, a judge is presumed unbiased, and the challenger bears the burden. Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009), overruled on other grounds by Romano, 138 Nev. at 6, 501 P.3d at 984. Rulings during official proceedings generally do not establish disqualification grounds. In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988). Absent an extrajudicial source, disqualification is unwarranted without a showing of "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022). Carrera did not demonstrate this was one of the "exceedingly rare cases" warranting reassignment. Williams v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 583 P.3d 223, 230 (2026). The court did not reach relocation because Carrera did not present argument on the NRS 125C.007 relocation factors and the modification ruling was dispositive.

In plain language

Salvatore Carrera and Lori Peterson were never married but have one child together, N.P., born in 2012 and identified in the opinion as having autism. Since 2014, the parties shared joint legal custody, with Peterson holding primary physical custody (meaning the child lived mainly with her) and Carrera having parenting time. In 2024, after Carrera sought changes, the parties agreed to keep that arrangement, with Carrera having parenting time in Texas. In March 2025, Carrera again asked the court to change custody. His request centered on an October 2024 incident in which Daniel, Peterson's ex-husband with whom she had reconciled and was living, was arrested for domestic violence against Peterson. Carrera argued that he should get primary physical custody and be allowed to move N.P. to his home in Texas, pointing to domestic violence in Peterson's home, alleged neglect, and instability, and saying his own home was stable and could provide therapy and educational resources for N.P.'s autism. The district court held an evidentiary hearing where Carrera, Peterson, Daniel, Peterson's sister, and three sheriff's deputies testified. The judge found, by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning "more likely than not"), that N.P. had lived in a home where domestic violence occurred, and even found that this factor favored Carrera. But weighing all the relevant factors together, the court concluded that N.P.'s best interest was served by staying with Peterson. The judge emphasized N.P.'s special needs, the value of stability, N.P.'s close relationship with both Peterson and Daniel, and that Daniel had been a consistent parental presence. The court denied Carrera's requests. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that a judge's custody decision is reviewed only for "abuse of discretion" - the court will overturn it only if no reasonable judge could have reached the same conclusion. The appeals court rejected each of Carrera's arguments: On the excluded 9-1-1 recordings, the court said Carrera never identified who made the calls, either below or on appeal, so he did not show the trial judge was wrong to exclude them for lack of authentication. On his other evidentiary complaints, the court said he only pointed to transcript page numbers without making a developed argument, so it would not consider them. On the discovery issue, Carrera argued that because Peterson did not timely respond to his "requests for admission" (written questions a party must admit or deny), those matters should have been automatically treated as admitted. The court held that even if the trial judge erred, any error was harmless: Carrera was allowed to question Peterson about the same subjects at the hearing, and the judge decided the case on its merits. The court also noted that in custody cases involving domestic violence, all information must be considered, and sanctions that block evidence are disfavored. On domestic violence, the court held that the special rebuttable presumption in NRS 125C.0035(5) did not apply because that presumption only applies when a parent or another person seeking custody committed the violence - and Daniel was neither a parent nor seeking custody. The court found the trial judge did properly consider the domestic violence as a best interest factor. On the remaining best interest findings and the bias claim, the court held Carrera did not show the findings lacked support or that the judge acted out of improper bias. The appeals court also stressed that it could not reweigh evidence or credibility.