LAIRD VS. LAIRD (CHILD SUPPORT)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This brief per curiam opinion affirms a district court's refusal, in a decree-modification proceeding, to order the mother to contribute to child support after custody of the parties' two minor children was awarded to the father. The father contended that a mother's contribution to support is mandatory as a matter of law whenever the children are not in her custody. The court rejected the contention, finding no supporting authority. The court held that child support is committed to the district court's discretion: '[t]he trial court in providing for child support, [does] so in exercise of discretionary powers conferred upon it by NRS 125.140(1).' Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 211, 523 P.2d 1, 2 (1974). The exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed absent a clear case of abuse. Fenkell v. Fenkell, 86 Nev. 397, 400, 469 P.2d 701, 703 (1970). Perceiving no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that no special circumstances were shown to justify consideration of the father's request, the court affirmed.

In plain language

In a proceeding to modify a divorce decree, the district court awarded custody of the parties' two minor children to the father. The father also asked the court to order the mother to help pay for the children's support, but the court refused to even consider that request, finding no special circumstances that would justify it. The father appealed, arguing that as a matter of law a mother must contribute to her children's support whenever the children are not in her custody. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed. The court found no legal authority supporting the father's claim that such a contribution is mandatory. Instead, it explained that ordering child support is a matter left to the trial court's discretion under the child support statute. A trial court's decision about child support will not be overturned unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion. Reviewing the record, the Supreme Court saw no abuse of discretion in the trial court's conclusion that no special circumstances had been shown that would justify ordering the mother to contribute. The judgment was affirmed.