MADARANG VS. GERMER (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's custody decree, including parenting time, for abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Factual findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will not be set aside "unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence." Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). Substantial evidence "is evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). The court characterized Madarang's arguments as based on dissatisfaction with the district court's weighing of the evidence. It reiterated that it is not the appellate court's role to weigh conflicting evidence or assess witness credibility. See Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244. The district court considered the best interest factors in NRS 125C.0035(4) and the relocation factors in NRS 125C.007(2), finding explicitly or implicitly that the factors favored Germer, were equal or neutral, or were inapplicable. The district court found the parties had previously facilitated parenting time from a distance, that Germer held de facto primary custody for most of the child's life, that educational opportunities were roughly equal in both locales, that relocation would enhance the child's relationship with a half-brother in Oregon, and that Germer's increased career opportunities would benefit her and the child. It concluded relocation was in the child's best interest. Addressing Madarang's reliance on Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 1, 501 P.3d 980, 982 (2022) - which provides that modification of custody requires a substantial change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare and that the child's best interest is served by the modification - the court found the argument unpersuasive because the parties lacked an initial custody order and Madarang himself initiated the matter, noting a change in circumstances. The court held the district court properly addressed the child's best interest and followed the statutory framework for the relocation request, citing Monahan v. Hogan, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 7, 507 P.3d 588, 596 (Ct. App. 2022) (noting the district court need not restate the best interest factors under relocation analysis where a prior order with the best interest factors considered was incorporated). On the equal division of travel costs for custodial parenting time, the court invoked the principle that it need not consider claims not cogently argued or supported by relevant authority, citing Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). It noted that, as Madarang indicated in his fast track statement, there is no law requiring payment of travel related to custodial time by one party or the other, and that allocation remains within the district court's discretion. See Ogawa, 125 Nev. at 668, 221 P.3d at 704; see also Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244. Finding no abuse of discretion in the determinations on custody or relocation, the court affirmed.

In plain language

Mark Madarang and Celice Germer have one child together, born in 2018. They never married and, before this case, had no court order setting out who had custody. Madarang moved to New Jersey for work in 2017, visited Las Vegas regularly to spend time with the child, and moved back to Las Vegas in 2020, where he could work remotely and see the child more. By February 2021, the parents were routinely splitting time, with Madarang having the child roughly three days a week. In mid-2021, Germer told Madarang she planned to move to Oregon with the child for better work opportunities. Madarang then filed a petition asking a court to establish custody, seeking joint legal custody and primary physical custody if Germer relocated, and asking the court to stop her from moving before it ruled. Germer filed her own petition seeking sole legal custody and primary physical custody, plus a request for temporary custody to allow the move to Oregon. The two cases were combined. After a hearing in October 2021, the district court granted Germer's request to relocate temporarily, gave Madarang Thanksgiving and winter break, and scheduled a full evidentiary hearing for January 2022. At that hearing, the court heard from both parents, Madarang's girlfriend, and Germer's former work manager. In March 2022, the court issued its final decree: joint legal custody, primary physical custody with Germer (including the move to Oregon), and set parenting time for Madarang on certain holidays and school breaks. The decree said the "receiving parent" pays for the child's transportation for scheduled custodial time, and the parent using any extra parenting time pays those travel costs. Madarang appealed. He argued the court wrongly let Germer move, that the temporary move tainted the final decision, and that the court simply copied the "best interest" factors into its relocation analysis. He also said the court did not make enough findings supporting Germer, pointed to behavior he considered inappropriate, questioned whether a possible promotion actually helped the child, and said Germer sometimes blocked his relationship with the child. He also objected to paying travel costs when he was not the one moving. The Court of Appeals explained that it reviews custody and parenting-time decisions for "abuse of discretion" - meaning it does not second-guess the trial judge unless the judge acted unreasonably or made findings not supported by adequate evidence. The court said Madarang was essentially unhappy with how the trial judge weighed the evidence, but that weighing evidence and judging witness credibility is the trial court's job, not the appellate court's. Because the district court had addressed each issue, considered the statutory best-interest and relocation factors, and based its conclusions on substantial evidence, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion. On travel costs, the court noted there is no law requiring one parent or the other to pay for travel tied to custodial time, so that decision falls within the trial judge's discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decree.