IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF Y.U.G. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The appeal presented a question of subject matter jurisdiction over a guardianship petition. The court reviewed the issue de novo, citing Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009) ("Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review."). The court framed the governing law by noting that subject matter jurisdiction over child custody issues is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified in NRS 125A.005-.605, per Ogawa, 125 Nev. at 668, 221 P.3d at 704, and observing that NRS 125A.055 defines a "child custody proceeding" as including a proceeding for guardianship. The court applied the plain-language canon from In re P.S., 131 Nev. 955, 956, 364 P.3d 1271, 1271 (2015) (quoting MGM Mirage v. Nev. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 125 Nev. 223, 228-29, 209 P.3d 766, 769 (2009)), stating that where statutory language is plain and unambiguous, capable of only one meaning, the court should not construe it otherwise. Applying NRS 125A.305(1)(a), the court explained that the district court had jurisdiction over the guardianship petition if Nevada "was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State." The court referenced the definition of "home state" in NRS 125A.085(1) and the definition of "commencement" in NRS 125A.065 (the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding). On application, the court found: (1) Y.U.G. lived in Nevada from his birth in June 2022 until relocating to California in April 2023, more than six consecutive months, making Nevada his home state as of April 2023, see NRS 125A.085; (2) Ladesha filed the petition in July 2023, approximately three months after the child moved, so Nevada was the home state within six months of commencement, see NRS 125A.305(1)(a); and (3) at the time of filing, the child was absent from Nevada but his parents remained in Las Vegas. Because all requirements were satisfied, the district court had jurisdiction under NRS 125A.305(1)(a), and it erred in denying the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Having resolved the appeal on this basis, the court declined to reach the remaining issues, citing Miller v. Burk, 124 Nev. 579, 588-89 & n.26, 188 P.3d 1112, 1118-19 & n.26 (2008).

In plain language

This case concerns which state's courts have the authority to decide who should be appointed guardian of a young child, Y.U.G. The child was born in Las Vegas in June 2022 to Daron G. and Sway Dumes. When the child was about ten months old, the parents concluded they could not care for him because they did not have stable housing, so they entrusted him to his paternal aunt, Ladesha G., who lives in Compton, California. In April 2023, Ladesha took the child to live with her in California, while the parents stayed in Las Vegas. About three months later, in July 2023, Ladesha brought the child back to Las Vegas to obtain his birth certificate and social security card. While there, she filed a petition asking a Nevada court to appoint her as the child's guardian, and the parents consented. After filing, she returned to California with the child. At an October hearing, the district court raised a concern: because the child had been living in California after the petition was filed, the judge questioned whether a Nevada court had the power (called subject matter jurisdiction) to hear the case. The court then issued a written decision denying the petition, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because "California is the home state." The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed. It explained that Nevada law lets a Nevada court hear a child custody or guardianship matter if Nevada was the child's "home state" within six months before the case was filed, so long as the child is now outside Nevada but a parent still lives in Nevada. Here, the child had lived in Nevada from birth in June 2022 until moving to California in April 2023 — more than ten months — so Nevada was his home state. The guardianship petition was filed in July 2023, only about three months after the child moved, which is within the six-month window. And even though the child was in California when the petition was filed, both parents still lived in Las Vegas. Because all of those conditions were met, the court held that the Nevada district court did have jurisdiction and should not have denied the petition for lack of it. Because that conclusion resolved the appeal, the Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court to proceed, and did not address the other issues Y.U.G. raised.