HICKS VS. LINDSEY (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's visitation decision for an abuse of discretion, citing Ramos v. Franklin, 139 Nev. 54, 60, 525 P.3d 1227, 1232 (2023). Under the governing standard, a court abuses its discretion if "no reasonable judge could reach a similar conclusion under the same circumstances," quoting Leavitt v. Siems, 130 Nev. 503, 509, 330 P.3d 1, 5 (2014). The court also invoked the presumption that "a trial court has properly exercised its discretion in determining a child's best interest," quoting Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). On the statutory framework, the court explained that grandparents may petition for reasonable visitation under NRS 125C.050(1), but that such visitation "may only be granted when 'a parent of the child has denied or unreasonably restricted visits with the child'" under NRS 125C.050(3), citing Ramos, 139 Nev. at 58, 525 P.3d at 1231, which stated that "Visitation under [NRS 125C.050(1) and (2)] may be ordered only if a parent of the child has denied or unreasonably restricted visits with the child." Applying that framework, the court noted the district court's finding that Lindsey did not deny or unreasonably restrict Hicks's visitation. The Court of Appeals emphasized that Hicks did not present cogent argument concerning that finding or challenge the court's decision in light of it, citing Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (appellate courts need not consider issues unsupported by cogent argument), and Palmieri v. Clark County, 131 Nev. 1028, 1033 n.2, 367 P.3d 442, 446 n.2 (Ct. App. 2015) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed forfeited). To the extent Hicks asked the court to reevaluate the evidence concerning her involvement and relationship with the children, the court stated it was "not at liberty to do so," citing Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 366, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009). Concluding that Hicks failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the court affirmed, again citing Ramos, 139 Nev. at 60, 525 P.3d at 1232.

In plain language

This case involves a grandmother's request for court-ordered time with her two grandchildren. Eddie Lindsey and Nia Bullock had two children together. Bullock died shortly after their second child was born. Bullock's mother, Nia Hicks, is the children's grandmother. She went to court asking for "grandparent visitation" - a legal arrangement in which a court sets aside time for a grandparent to see grandchildren. Hicks said in her petition that Lindsey, the father, was unreasonably keeping her from the children. Lindsey disagreed, saying he had not blocked her visits and was willing to let her see the children. At trial, the court heard that Hicks lives mainly in Virginia but travels to Las Vegas often because she works for an airline. She testified that she visited the children about 8 times in the past 12 months. She wanted a court order requiring Lindsey to let the children stay with her - including overnight - during her Las Vegas trips, and on holidays and birthdays. Lindsey testified that although he does not get along well with Hicks, he had not tried to block her relationship with the children, pointing to the many visits she had over the past year. He raised concerns about overnight stays because the younger child has sickle cell anemia and needs care for that condition, and he worried that the amount of visitation Hicks wanted would be disruptive. The district court found that Lindsey is a fit parent with a right to the care and custody of his children, and that he had not denied or unreasonably restricted Hicks's visits. The court decided it was in the children's best interest to let Lindsey set their schedules, and it denied the petition. On appeal, Hicks asked the higher court to look again at the evidence about her involvement with the children. The Court of Appeals explained that it does not re-weigh evidence, and that under Nevada law a court can order grandparent visitation only when a parent has denied or unreasonably restricted visits. Because the district court found that Lindsey had not done so, and because Hicks did not make a developed legal argument challenging that specific finding, the appellate court affirmed - meaning it upheld the district court's decision to deny visitation.