COBIAN VS. RAMIREZ (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed several distinct rulings under differing standards. **Subject matter jurisdiction / registration of the foreign order.** The court reviewed subject matter jurisdiction de novo, giving deference to the district court's factual findings, which are upheld "if not clearly erroneous and if supported by substantial evidence." Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667-68, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). The UCCJEA, codified as NRS Chapter 125A, exclusively governs subject matter jurisdiction over child custody. NRS 125A.305(2); Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 842, 847, 264 P.3d 1161, 1165 (2011). Under NRS 125A.305(1)(a), Nevada has jurisdiction where Nevada was the child's home state within six months before the proceeding commenced and the child is absent but a parent continues to live in the state. The district court found L.R. had resided in Nevada for a year and a half and that Ramirez still lived in Nevada; those uncontested findings were supported by substantial evidence, making Nevada the home state. The court therefore found no error in registration. See NRS 125A.465(6). In a footnote, the court noted NRS 125A.465 and NRS 125A.475 authorize registration, jurisdiction, and enforcement of a sister-state order, and declined to reach Cobian's inadequately supported jurisdictional argument or Ramirez's timeliness argument. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006); Johnson v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 105 Nev. 314, 315 n.1, 774 P.2d 1047, 1048 n.1 (1989). **Inconvenient forum.** A court with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction has discretion to decline jurisdiction if it determines Nevada is an inconvenient forum under NRS 125A.365(1), but this authority is permissive, not mandatory. Sengbusch v. Fuller, 103 Nev. 580, 582, 747 P.2d 240, 241 (1987); see also SCR 2(9); DCR 2(6). Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction persists under NRS 125A.315 until specified findings are made. Although the district court did not make individualized findings under NRS 125A.365(2), Cobian supported her argument only with a summary affidavit and did not explain why Nevada was inconvenient under the statutory factors or why the court should reverse its jurisdictional determination made less than six months earlier. The record showed substantial custody-related information in Nevada, judicial familiarity with the case, that Cobian had recently relocated, and that California lacked jurisdiction. See NRS 125A.365(2)(b), (f), (h). Because Cobian did not show what findings should have been made or how they would have changed the result, she failed to show prejudice. Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. 446, 465, 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010); Friedman, 127 Nev. at 847, 264 P.3d at 1165. **Modification of physical custody.** Custody determinations are reviewed for a clear abuse of discretion. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). An abuse occurs where the decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is clearly erroneous. Bautista v. Picone, 134 Nev. 334, 336, 419 P.3d 157, 159 (2018). The court must be satisfied the determination was made "for appropriate reasons." Rico v. Rodriguez, 121 Nev. 695, 701, 120 P.3d 812, 816 (2005). Factual findings are upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. The court presumes the district court properly exercised its discretion regarding best interest. Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1226-27 (2004). Modification requires (1) a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare and (2) that modification serve the child's best interest. Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 3, 501 P.3d 980, 982 (2022), abrogated on other grounds by Killebrew, Tr. of Killebrew Revocable Tr. v. State ex rel. Donohue, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 48, 585 P.3d 1167 (2023). A court may award primary physical custody where joint physical custody is not in the child's best interest. NRS 125C.0035(1). The district court found a substantial change based on the parties' relocations away from Utah, the child's increased age, and Cobian's pervasive interference with Ramirez's parenting time — the latter alone constituting a substantial change. Martin v. Martin, 120 Nev. 342, 348, 90 P.3d 981, 981-82 (2004), abrogated on other grounds by Ellis. Applying the best-interest factors, the court found six factors favored Ramirez and none favored Cobian, citing NRS 125C.0035(4)(c), (d), (e), (g), (h), and (j) (including a finding that Cobian's unfounded accusations subjecting L.R. to multiple forensic interviews constituted emotional abuse). The appellate court declined to reweigh evidence or revisit credibility determinations. Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 366, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009); Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 238, 955 P.2d 661, 664 (1998). Cobian also failed to show prejudice. Wyeth, 126 Nev. at 465, 244 P.3d at 778. **Relocation.** Relocation decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Flynn, 120 Nev. at 440, 92 P.3d at 1227; Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. In relocation, the court decides "whether it is in the best interest of the child to live with parent A in a different state or parent B in Nevada." Druckman v. Ruscitti, 130 Nev. 468, 474, 327 P.3d 511, 515 (2014). NRS 125C.007 supplies a two-step analysis: the relocating parent must first show, under NRS 125C.007(1), a sensible good-faith reason for the move not intended to deprive the other parent of parenting time, that the child's best interests are served, and an actual advantage; if met, the court weighs the six factors in NRS 125C.007(2). The court noted, in a footnote, that although NRS 125C.006(1) and NRS 125C.007 ordinarily apply to a primary-custody parent relocating from Nevada, the district court applied the relocation statute because the child was residing with Cobian in California when Ramirez moved. The district court made findings under both steps favoring L.R.'s relocation to Las Vegas with Ramirez. The appellate court declined to revisit the abuse-allegation and credibility findings, and found substantial evidence supported the relocation decision. **Contempt.** Contempt is generally within the district court's particular knowledge and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 650, 5 P.3d 569, 571 (2000); Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev. 453, 456, 373 P.3d 878, 880 (2016). A court has contempt power over disobedience of a lawful order. NRS 22.010(3). The underlying order must be clear and unambiguous. Div. of Child & Fam. Servs. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 445, 454-55, 92 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2004). Contempt outside the court's presence requires an affidavit describing the contempt, EDCR 5.509, established by clear and convincing evidence, In re Battaglia, 653 F.2d 419, 422 (9th Cir. 1981). Ramirez filed an affidavit and testified that Cobian withheld L.R. over Thanksgiving 2023 in violation of the order; the court did not credit Cobian's explanation that she acted on police and CFS advice, and found by clear and convincing evidence that she withheld the child without legal justification. The appellate court affirmed. **Judicial bias / reassignment.** A decision on disqualification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Ivey v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 129 Nev. 154, 162, 299 P.3d 354, 359 (2013). Judges are presumed impartial and the challenger bears the burden. Ybarra v. State, 127 Nev. 47, 51, 247 P.3d 269, 272 (2011); Roe v. Roe, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21, 535 P.3d 274, 291 (Ct. App. 2023). Rulings during proceedings generally do not establish grounds for disqualification, and disqualifying personal bias must stem from an extrajudicial source. In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789-90, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988). Reassignment on remand is assessed under the three-factor Roe test. Because the court affirmed the custody order, it deemed the reassignment issue moot, but stated reassignment would not be required in any event: Cobian's disqualification motion had been denied by the Chief Judge as procedurally and substantively deficient, and her appellate argument rested only on the adverse credibility findings, failing to show deep-seated favoritism or antagonism. Cameron v. State, 114 Nev. 1281, 1283, 968 P.2d 1169, 1171 (1998). **Issues not reached.** The court did not reach the child-support challenge because it depended on reversal of the custody award. It found the school-enrollment issue moot because the order concerned only the 2024 spring semester. Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). And it held it lacked jurisdiction over the attorney-fees issue because the challenged order found only that Ramirez was "entitled to" fees; a separate fee award would be independently appealable as a special order after final judgment. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000).

In plain language

This is a custody dispute between two parents, Nereida Cobian and Armando Emmanuel Ramirez, who had a child, L.R., born in Utah in October 2015. Early on, the parents submitted a letter to a Utah court in which Ramirez appeared to give up his parental rights, but the court did not treat it as a full waiver. Instead, the Utah court gave Cobian sole legal and physical custody and gave Ramirez standard parenting time, and it required Ramirez to pay child support. Cobian moved with the child, first to California and later to Las Vegas. Ramirez, who worked for and then as a civilian contractor connected to the Air Force, moved to Las Vegas as well. Over time, conflict grew. According to the district court's findings, Cobian repeatedly restricted Ramirez's time with L.R., moved to California in June 2021 without Ramirez's consent or a court order, and reported Ramirez to California child-welfare authorities for physical and sexual abuse. That investigation ended with the allegations found "unsubstantiated or inconclusive." California, which had briefly taken emergency jurisdiction, gave jurisdiction back to Nevada in July 2022. Ramirez asked the Nevada court to register the Utah order and to change custody. After an evidentiary hearing that was rescheduled four times, the district court awarded Ramirez primary physical custody, gave the parents joint legal custody, ordered L.R. returned to Las Vegas and enrolled in a Las Vegas school for the spring semester, ended Ramirez's child-support obligation, and held Cobian in contempt (with a $500 fine) for blocking Ramirez's parenting time over Thanksgiving 2023. Cobian appealed. On review, the Court of Appeals rejected each of her arguments. It concluded that Nevada was the child's "home state" and that the district court properly had jurisdiction to register the Utah order and decide custody. It found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to keep the case in Nevada rather than transfer it to California, because Ramirez still lived in Nevada and the Nevada court was familiar with the case. It upheld the custody change, noting that the trial judge made detailed findings that circumstances had substantially changed and that the child's best interests favored Ramirez. The appellate court explained that it does not re-weigh evidence or second-guess a trial court's credibility findings, including the trial court's determination that Cobian's abuse allegations were not credible. It upheld the relocation order, the contempt finding, and it declined to order the case reassigned to a different judge, finding that Cobian had not shown bias. The court did not decide certain issues. It declined to address the child-support challenge in detail because that challenge depended on reversing the custody award, which the court affirmed. It found the school-enrollment issue moot because the order concerned only the 2024 spring semester. And it concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the attorney-fees issue because the order under appeal only found that Ramirez was "entitled to" fees rather than actually awarding them.