DAVIS VS. DAVIS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Custody decisions rest within the district court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Culbertson v. Culbertson, 91 Nev. 230, 233, 533 P.2d 768, 769 (1975). Under NRS 125A.350 and Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 382-83, 812 P.2d 1268, 1270-71 (1991), the moving parent must first make a threshold showing of a sensible, good-faith reason (an 'actual advantage'), Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 315, 890 P.2d 1309, 1313 (1995); Jones v. Jones, 110 Nev. 1253, 1261, 885 P.2d 563, 569 (1994), after which the court weighs the Schwartz factors, focusing on the availability of adequate, alternate visitation. The district court found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that Courtney satisfied the good-faith threshold, but that the fifth Schwartz factor was dispositive. Reasonable visitation is that which 'will provide an adequate basis for preserving and fostering a child's relationship with the noncustodial parent if removal is allowed.' Gandee v. Gandee, 111 Nev. 754, 758, 895 P.2d 1285, 1288 (1995). The court held the district court could reasonably conclude the proposed visitation (about eight weeks each summer and alternating Christmases) was inadequate, given Michael's hands-on four-day-per-week involvement, the roughly six-hour travel time rendering frequent brief visits impractical, and Michael's firefighter schedule (four consecutive 24-hour shifts every eight days) that would require 24-hour childcare and substantially reduce his actual time with the children. Because substantial evidence supported the determination that reasonable alternate visitation was unavailable, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and the court affirmed. The court noted that McGuinness v. McGuinness, 114 Nev. 1431, 970 P.2d 1074 (1998), clarified that Schwartz applies in joint-custody relocation cases.

In plain language

Courtney and Michael Davis divorced in Las Vegas and shared joint legal and physical custody of their two young daughters, with Courtney temporarily designated primary physical custodian and Michael having the children four days a week. Shortly after signing a settlement agreement keeping that arrangement, Courtney decided she could not sustain herself financially in Las Vegas and petitioned to move the children to Fort Walton Beach, Florida, to live near her parents, pursue schooling, and take a job. The district court found Courtney's reasons were legitimate and made in good faith, but denied the move because it could not fashion a workable alternate visitation schedule for Michael. The Supreme Court affirmed. Nevada relocation law (NRS 125A.350) and the Schwartz framework require the moving parent to show a good-faith reason for the move and then weigh several factors, with particular focus on the fifth factor - whether reasonable, alternate visitation is available that would preserve and foster the child's relationship with the other parent. The district court accepted that Courtney had good-faith reasons, but found the fifth factor was dispositive against her. The Court agreed the district court could reasonably conclude the proposed visitation (about eight weeks in summer plus alternating Christmases) was not adequate. Michael was a hands-on parent who had the children four days a week, the roughly six-hour travel distance made short, frequent visits impractical, and Michael's job as a firefighter (four consecutive 24-hour shifts every eight days) meant extended visits would require round-the-clock childcare and would sharply reduce his actual time with the children. Because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that reasonable alternate visitation was not available, the district court did not abuse its discretion, and the denial was affirmed.