HARRIS VS. HARRIS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Per Curiam. On the mother's appeal from an order vesting custody of the parties' seven-year-old daughter in the father, the court affirmed. Declining to recite the parents' mutual accusations of unfitness, the court noted that the trial court found the father fit but made no finding as to the mother's fitness. The court observed it could imply a finding that the mother was unfit (cf. Timney v. Timney, 76 Nev. 230, 351 P.2d 611 (1960)), but deemed that neither necessary nor proper. Because the record could be read to affirm the express finding that the father was fit to have custody and that the child's best interests would be served by placing her in his care, the court sustained the trial court's exercise of discretion on that basis. (The companion decision Peavey v. Peavey, 85 Nev. 571, 460 P.2d 110 (1969), later distinguished Harris on the ground that the Harris record supported the express best-interest finding.)

In plain language

The mother of a seven-year-old daughter asked the Nevada Supreme Court to set aside an order that gave custody of the girl to her father. Both parents had accused each other of being unfit to raise the child. The court declined to repeat those accusations. It noted that the trial court had found the father fit but had said nothing one way or the other about the mother. The Supreme Court said it could have implied that the mother was unfit, but chose not to take that route. Instead, the court affirmed the custody order on a simpler basis. The record could be read to support the trial court's express finding that the father was fit and that the child's best interests would be served by placing her in his care. Because a proper best-interest finding supported the decision, the court upheld the trial judge's exercise of discretion.