IN RE: E.C., J.O.C., M.E.C., O.E.C. AND V.R.C. (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

• -A court order finally resolving a petition for child protection under NRS Chapter 432B is appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1), and an order placing children in a parent's custody and closing the case disposes of all issues and constitutes a final, appealable order.
• -A district court's factual findings on a child-protection petition under NRS Chapter 432B are reviewed for an abuse of discretion and upheld if not clearly erroneous and supported by substantial evidence.
• -Where an appellant fails to provide a required transcript under NRAP 9(a)(1), (7), the appellate court necessarily presumes the missing transcript supports the district court's decision.
• -Appellate courts do not reevaluate a trial court's credibility determinations or reweigh evidence.
• -Procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, and scheduling and the allocation of hearing time fall within the trial court's sound discretion.
• -Disqualification for judicial bias is unwarranted absent a showing that the judge's opinion originated in an extrajudicial source or reflected deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible, with the burden on the party asserting bias.

Practitioner summary

This is an appeal from a final order in an NRS Chapter 432B child-protection proceeding. As a threshold matter, the court addressed the State's jurisdictional challenge. The State contended the order containing the factual findings was not a final appealable order. The court held that a "court order finally resolving a petition for child protection under NRS Chapter 432B is appealable as a final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(1)," citing In re N.D., 142 Nev., Adv. Op. 2, 582 P.3d 159, 162 (2026). Because the district court's order placed the children in the mother's custody and closed the case, it disposed of all issues and constituted a final, appealable order. See Sandstrom v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. 657, 659, 119 P.3d 1250, 1252 (2005). The court further noted it could review interlocutory decisions entered before the final order, citing Consol. Generator-Nev., Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., Inc., 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998). Standard of review: The court reviews a district court's factual findings on a child-protection petition under NRS Chapter 432B for an abuse of discretion, citing Aug. H. v. State, 105 Nev. 441, 445-46, 777 P.2d 901, 903-04 (1989). "An abuse of discretion occurs when a district court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is clearly erroneous." Bautista v. Picone, 134 Nev. 334, 336, 419 P.3d 157, 159 (2018). Factual findings are given deference and upheld if not clearly erroneous and supported by substantial evidence. Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). Abuse-and-neglect findings: The district court found abuse and neglect by mental injury of a nonaccidental nature under NRS 432B.140, based on witness testimony and documentary evidence, determining Miguel coached and coerced the children into false sexual-abuse allegations to gain custody and caused them emotional damage. The dispositive obstacle to Miguel's challenge was the appellate record: Miguel filed a certificate stating he was not requesting transcripts, and thus did not provide the evidentiary-hearing transcript. Under NRAP 9(a)(1), (7), appellants must request and provide transcripts necessary for the appeal. Absent the transcript, the court presumed it supported the district court's decisions, citing Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007). The court also declined to reevaluate credibility determinations, citing Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 366, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009). The court noted that the supreme court had issued a notice informing Miguel of his transcript options, including that in forma pauperis appellants could have transcript costs waived, and citing NRAP 9. Due process: Constitutional challenges are reviewed de novo, citing Callie v. Bowling, 123 Nev. 181, 183, 160 P.3d 878, 879 (2007). "[P]rocedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard." Id. "Due process is satisfied where interested parties are given an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mesi v. Mesi, 136 Nev. 748, 750, 478 P.3d 366, 369 (2020). Hearing and trial procedures, including scheduling, are within the trial court's sound discretion, citing Zupancic v. Sierra Vista Recreation, 97 Nev. 187, 192, 625 P.2d 1177, 1180 (1981), and Matter of J.B., 140 Nev. 362, 369, 550 P.3d 333, 339 (2024). The court found Miguel was served with the petition, received notice of the hearing, appeared with counsel, and testified. Absent the transcript, the court presumed it supported the district court's decisions on time allowed for presentation. To the extent Miguel raised additional bases, they were not supported by cogent argument, citing Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Judicial bias: The court concluded relief was unwarranted because Miguel had not demonstrated the court's decisions were based on knowledge acquired outside the proceedings or reflected "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible," citing Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022). Rulings made during official judicial proceedings generally do not establish grounds for disqualification, citing In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988), and the burden is on the party asserting bias, citing Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009), overruled on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 6, 501 P.3d 980, 984 (2022). The court also found this was not one of the "exceedingly rare cases where reassignment is necessary to preserve public confidence and trust in the fairness of a judicial proceeding," citing Williams v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 583 P.3d 223, 226 (2026).

In plain language

This case involves a father, Miguel E.C., and his five minor children. In March 2025, the State of Nevada filed a petition claiming the children needed protection. According to the petition, Miguel made numerous allegations - later found to be false - that the children had been sexually abused by their mother and/or her relatives. The petition said these false claims caused the children to undergo medical examinations and to take part in investigations of their mother and relatives, that Miguel appeared to have coached the children to make the false claims, and that Miguel may have a mental health condition driving his behavior. The children were removed from Miguel's care and placed with their mother. The district court held an evidentiary hearing (a court session where witnesses testify and evidence is presented). Miguel attended and testified. Other witnesses, including detectives who investigated the sexual-abuse allegations, also testified, and documents were introduced. Afterward, the court found that Miguel had abused and neglected the children by causing them mental injury that was not accidental. The court concluded that Miguel coached and coerced the children into making false abuse allegations as a way to try to gain custody, and that this caused the children emotional harm. The court then gave the mother sole custody, ended the agency's custody, gave Miguel supervised parenting time, said any future custody changes would have to go through a regular custody court, and closed the case. On appeal, Miguel argued three main things: that the district court's findings were wrong because the State presented false evidence, that his due process rights were violated because the court made him rush through his testimony, and that the judge was biased against him. The Court of Appeals affirmed. A key reason was a record problem: Miguel filed a certificate stating he was not requesting transcripts of the hearing, so the appeals court never received a written record of what was said. Under Nevada rules, when an appellant does not provide the necessary transcript, the appeals court assumes the missing transcript supports the lower court's decision. Because of that, the court could not meaningfully review Miguel's arguments about the evidence, and it noted that appeals courts do not re-weigh a trial court's decisions about which witnesses to believe. On due process, the court found Miguel had received notice of the hearing, appeared with his lawyer, and testified - and again, without a transcript, the court presumed the record supported how the trial judge handled the time for testimony. On bias, the court found Miguel had not shown the judge relied on outside information or displayed the kind of deep-seated hostility that would make a fair decision impossible. The opinion also addressed a jurisdictional objection from the State. The State argued the appeal should be dismissed because the order with the factual findings was not a final, appealable order. The court rejected that, explaining that the order placing the children with their mother and closing the case resolved everything and was therefore a final appealable order, which also allowed the court to review earlier interlocutory (non-final) decisions.