HAYNES VS. CHILDS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed a family court child custody decree under the abuse-of-discretion standard, citing Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241-42 (2007). Custody determinations are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, defined as evidence "which a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." Id. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. The court reiterated that the sole consideration in a custody determination is the best interest of the child, citing NRS 125C.0035(1) and Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 451, 352 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015), and that it presumes the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining the child's best interest, citing Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1226-27 (2004). Applying that framework, the court found that Haynes only summarily asserted her requests for a new trial, termination of the respondent's parental rights, and full custody, "without any argument as to how the district court failed to provide a fair trial or otherwise abused its discretion." The court invoked Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006), for the proposition that appellate courts need not consider claims that are not cogently argued. As to the physical-abuse allegation and the referenced photographs, the court found nothing in the record indicating Haynes raised the issue at trial or offered any photos as evidence. As to the assertion that the district court precluded her mother from testifying, the court found nothing in the record indicating Haynes called her mother to testify or attempted to offer that testimony. The court applied the waiver rule of Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981), quoting that "A point not urged in the trial court . . . is deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal." Because Haynes failed to offer any cogent argument as to how the district court abused its discretion, the court affirmed. In a footnote, the court construed a document Haynes filed June 14, 2022, as a reply to the fast track response and considered it, and stated that any arguments not specifically addressed either did not present a basis for relief or need not be reached.

In plain language

Cinnamon Haynes and Malcolm Childs share one child. After a trial in family court, the judge issued a custody decree - a court order deciding who cares for and makes decisions about the child. The judge gave Malcolm sole legal custody (the authority to make major decisions about the child) and primary physical custody (the child lives mainly with him). Cinnamon was allowed supervised parenting time at a facility called Donna's House, but only after completing a parenting class, and she was ordered to pay child support. Cinnamon appealed. She told the Court of Appeals that she did not get a fair trial, that she should have primary physical custody, and that Malcolm's parental rights should be ended because, she said, he physically abused the child. The Court of Appeals explained that it reviews custody decisions for "abuse of discretion" - meaning it does not re-decide the case itself, but checks whether the trial judge acted within reasonable bounds and whether the decision is backed by enough evidence. The court also noted that in custody cases the guiding standard is the best interest of the child, and that courts assume the trial judge exercised that discretion properly. The court concluded that Cinnamon's appeal did not give it enough to work with. She stated that she wanted a new trial, wanted full custody, and wanted Malcolm's rights terminated, but she did not explain how the trial judge did anything wrong. On her abuse claim, the court found nothing in the record showing she raised that issue at trial or offered the photos she referenced as evidence. On her claim that the judge prevented her mother from testifying, the court found nothing in the record showing she tried to call her mother as a witness. Because a point not raised in the trial court is treated as waived, and because the appellate courts need not consider arguments that are not clearly and fully made, the court affirmed the custody decree.