KHALIFAH VS. HOLLINGS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed all challenged rulings - custody, school choice, and child support, including the orders denying reconsideration - for abuse of discretion, affirming factual findings supported by substantial evidence, defined as "evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241-42 (2007). **Physical custody (September 2024 order).** To modify custody, a movant must show "(1) there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child, and (2) the child's best interest is served by the modification." Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 5, 501 P.3d 980, 983 (2022) (abrogated in part on other grounds by Killebrew v. State ex rel. Donohue, 139 Nev. 401, 405, 535 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2023)). The sole consideration is the child's best interest, NRS 125C.0035(1); Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 451, 352 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015), and the court must make specific findings on the best-interest factors of NRS 125C.0035(4). The court applied a presumption that the district court properly exercised its discretion. Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1226-27 (2004). In a footnote, the court noted the district court did not make specific findings under NRS 125C.0035(4)(b) and (l), but observed neither party presented relevant testimony. Finding the best-interest determinations supported by substantial evidence, and declining to reweigh evidence or credibility, Quintero v. McDonald, 116 Nev. 1181, 1183, 14 P.3d 522, 523 (2000) and Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244, the court discerned no abuse of discretion. **School choice (September 2024 order).** School-choice decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with the non-exhaustive factor list and fact-specific weighing framework from Arcella v. Arcella, 133 Nev. 868, 870, 872-73, 407 P.3d 341, 344, 346-47 (2017). The district court made findings under the Arcella factors, acknowledged the sincerity of Khalifah's concerns (and its own discomfort with the school), and concluded, on the totality of circumstances and given only two presented options (DLA or homeschooling), that continued attendance at DLA was in the child's best interest. The findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the court declined to reweigh evidence or credibility. **Child support / imputation (September 2024 order).** Child support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion, Edgington v. Edgington, 119 Nev. 577, 588, 80 P.3d 1282, 1290 (2003), with factual findings preserved if supported by substantial evidence, Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120, 125, 412 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2018). A court may impute income to an obligor who is underemployed or unemployed without good cause, NAC 425.125(1); Rosenbaum v. Rosenbaum, 86 Nev. 550, 554, 471 P.2d 254, 256-57 (1970), the key issue being the parent's good faith. Khalifah refused to disclose his claimed disability or document it, gave testimony the district court found inconsistent with his UNLV boxing participation, and shifted to other reasons for not working. The court deemed his appellate challenge to focus exclusively on the disability, treating other good-cause arguments as forfeited under Palmieri v. Clark County, 131 Nev. 1028, 1033 n.2, 367 P.3d 442, 446 n.2 (Ct. App. 2015). His later doctor's note regarding episodes of syncope was not shown to be newly discovered evidence, as he knew of the condition at trial. Masonry & Tile Contractors Ass'n of S. Nev. v. Jolley, Urga & Wirth, LTD., 113 Nev. 737, 741, 941 P.2d 486, 489 (1997); Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 892 n.6 (9th Cir. 1994); Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Reconsideration rulings were reviewed for abuse of discretion under AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589, 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010). **August 2025 order - substantive challenges.** The court treated any failure to make express findings about alleged falsehoods in Hollings' motion as harmless because her motion was denied. Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. 446, 465, 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010); cf. NRCP 61. As to findings about Khalifah's mental health under NRS 125C.0035(4)(f), the court held that even assuming error, those findings related only to the best-interest analysis, and because the district court provided independent alternative grounds (no substantial change in circumstances), Khalifah had to challenge all grounds to obtain reversal. Hung v. Genting Berhad, 138 Nev. 547, 549, 513 P.3d 1285, 1287 (Ct. App. 2022); Romano, 138 Nev. at 5, 501 P.3d at 982. His remaining substantive argument - exposure to drug usage, volatile arguments, and a stepbrother's conduct - had been raised at the prior hearing, and he offered no argument that they constituted a substantial change in circumstances since the September 2024 order. Nance v. Ferraro, 134 Nev. 152, 158, 418 P.3d 679, 684 (Ct. App. 2018). A claimed post-August-2025 abuse incident could not be considered as outside the pre-appeal record. Cf. Carson Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank of Nev., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981). **August 2025 order - procedural challenge.** Scheduling of hearings is within the district court's sound discretion, Zupancic v. Sierra Vista Recreation, Inc., 97 Nev. 187, 192, 625 P.2d 1177, 1180 (1981); Matter of J.B., 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 39, 550 P.3d 333, 339 (2024), and Khalifah identified no evidence he was unable to proffer or elicit due to the hearing's timing.

In plain language

Hakeem Khalifah and Monique Hollings were never married but share one child, born in March 2018. Earlier in the case, the district court entered an agreed-upon ("stipulated") custody order giving both parents joint legal and physical custody, and later determined that Hollings owed Khalifah child support. Disagreements then arose over three main topics: which school the child should attend, which parent should have physical custody, and how to calculate child support. The child had been attending Dean Lamar Allen Elementary School (DLA) under a temporary order, and Khalifah wanted to homeschool her instead. The parents also disputed whether one of them should have primary physical custody, and whether income should be "imputed" to Khalifah - meaning treated as if he earns money even if he says he does not - when calculating support. After a four-day evidentiary hearing, the district court ruled in September 2024 that the child should keep attending DLA, that neither parent had shown a good enough reason to change the custody arrangement, and that the timeshare should switch to a week-on, week-off schedule. The court also found that Khalifah had not proven he was unable to work, so it treated him as capable of earning income for child-support purposes. Khalifah asked the court twice to reconsider, pointing to claimed new evidence about alternative schools and about a disability that he said prevents him from working. The court denied both requests. While the appeal moved forward, both parents filed new motions to modify custody. The case was sent back to the district court to hear those motions. After another hearing, the district court entered an August 2025 order denying both parents' motions, finding that neither parent had shown a "substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child" and that changing custody was not in the child's best interest. Khalifah appealed that order too. The Court of Appeals affirmed every part of the district court's decisions. On custody, the appellate court said the district court's findings were supported by adequate evidence and that an appeals court does not re-weigh evidence or re-judge witness credibility. On school choice, the court found the district court had properly considered the relevant factors and acknowledged Khalifah's concerns, even noting the judge was not entirely comfortable with the school, but concluded DLA was in the child's best interest given that the only two options presented were DLA or homeschooling. On child support, the court found Khalifah refused to explain his claimed disability or provide supporting documents at trial, and his later doctor's note about fainting episodes did not qualify as genuinely "newly discovered" evidence because he already knew about his condition. The court also rejected Khalifah's procedural complaint that the second hearing was scheduled too quickly, noting he did not identify any evidence he was prevented from presenting.