LAWRY VS. LAWRY (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

In a brief per curiam opinion, the court reviewed an order awarding sole custody to the mother and terminating the father's child support. Because the order was silent as to visitation, the court declined to imply a denial of visitation to the father or to assume the trial court intended so drastic a penalty. As to the total suspension of child support, the court held the trial court failed to make the findings required as to the effect of a total suspension of child support upon the present comfort and future well-being of the child. Noble v. Noble, 86 Nev. 459, 470 P.2d 430 (1970). The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

In plain language

A divorced father appealed from a district court order that gave "full and complete custody, care and control" of his minor son to the mother and relieved the father of any further child support. The father did not challenge the custody award itself. Instead, he read the order as denying him any reasonable visitation with his son. The Nevada Supreme Court addressed two points. First, the order said nothing about visitation, and the court was unwilling to read into that silence a complete denial of visitation, or to assume the trial court intended such a drastic result. Second, on the part of the order that entirely eliminated the father's child support obligation, the court noted that the trial court had failed to make the findings required before support can be totally cut off, specifically findings about the effect of eliminating support on the child's present comfort and future well-being. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.