PERREIRA VS. EISENBERG (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the child custody decision for abuse of discretion, affirming factual findings supported by substantial evidence—"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). The sole consideration in a custody determination 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 presumes the district court properly exercised its discretion, Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1226-27 (2004). Applying that framework, the court found the district court's best-interest findings under NRS 125C.0035(4) supported by substantial evidence. The district court considered Eric's limited contact with the child (last seen December 2021) and Samantha's efforts to involve him, see NRS 125C.0035(4)(c), (e), (h); found domestic violence under NRS 125C.0035(4)(k), citing Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 105, 86 P.3d 1042, 1047 (2004), and applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard from Soldo-Allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 9, 565 P.3d 842, 845 (Ct. App. 2025); and found Eric's substance abuse a safety concern under NRS 125C.0035(4)(f), rendering him unfit for the child to reside with, consistent with Roe v. Roe, 139 Nev. 163, 175, 535 P.3d 274, 288 (Ct. App. 2023). The court declined to reweigh evidence, citing Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 125 Nev. 349, 365-66, 212 P.3d 1068, 1080 (2009), and Schwartz v. Schwartz, 126 Nev. 87, 91, 225 P.3d 1273, 1276 (2010), and held Eric's past behavior was relevant under NRS 48.015. On child support, reviewed for abuse of discretion, Edgington v. Edgington, 119 Nev. 577, 588, 80 P.3d 1282, 1290 (2003), with underlying findings undisturbed if supported by substantial evidence, Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120, 125, 412 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2018), the court noted that an award "must be based on the obligor's earnings, income and other evidence of ability to pay," NAC 425.100(1), and that where gross monthly income is disputed the court determines it "after considering all financial or other information relevant to the earning capacity of the obligor," NAC 425.120(1)(b). Because Eric neither attended the hearing nor filed updated financial disclosures, his arguments were deemed waived under Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981), and unsupported by cogent argument under Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). On the continuance, the court applied the abuse-of-discretion standard from In re M.M.L., 133 Nev. 147, 150, 393 P.3d 1079, 1081 (2017), reversing only "for the most potent reasons." Because there are "no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process," Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964), and because due process is satisfied where parties have an opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner," Mesi v. Mesi, 136 Nev. 748, 750, 478 P.3d 366, 369 (2020), the court held that Eric—having had notice since June 8, 2025, of the August hearing—was not deprived of due process. The district court's failure to rule on Eric's enlargement request constituted a denial under Bd. of Gallery of History, Inc. v. Datecs Corp., 116 Nev. 286, 289, 994 P.2d 1149, 1150 (2000). On judicial bias, the court applied Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022), requiring an extrajudicial source or "a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible," and noted that rulings during proceedings generally do not establish grounds for disqualification, In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988), with the burden on the party asserting bias, Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 218, 233 (2009). The court found this was not one of the rare cases requiring reassignment under Williams v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 142 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 583 P.3d 223, 230 (2026).

In plain language

Eric Perreira and Samantha Eisenberg share a child. Eric filed a case asking for joint legal custody and primary physical custody. Samantha responded by asking for sole legal and sole physical custody (meaning she alone would make major decisions and the child would primarily live with her) and for child support. During the case, both parents raised accusations that the other used illegal drugs. Both were tested, and Eric tested positive for methamphetamine. The court ordered further drug testing and, for a time, limited Eric's time with the child to supervised visits at a facility called Donna's House. The case had already been to the Court of Appeals once. In that earlier appeal, the court found the trial judge had not made the findings the law requires before giving one parent sole custody, so it sent the case back for more proceedings. Back in the trial court, the judge set a new evidentiary hearing. Eric did not attend either the pre-hearing "calendar call" or the hearing itself. Samantha appeared with her lawyer and testified. She described her own past struggle with substance abuse, her completion of a rehabilitation program, and her sobriety since the child returned to her care in 2021. She testified about Eric's substance-abuse issues, his limited contact with the child, and an incident where she said Eric pulled her hair during an argument while she was pregnant, causing injury. She also testified about Eric's income sources. The trial judge issued a written decision that went through the factors Nevada law requires a court to weigh in deciding a child's best interest. The judge concluded most factors favored Samantha, found that Eric had committed an act of domestic violence, found his substance abuse posed a danger, and determined Eric was an unfit parent. The judge awarded Samantha sole legal and sole physical custody, but built in a path for Eric to rebuild a relationship with the child through drug testing, reunification therapy, and supervised parenting time. The judge also set child support at $711 per month plus $89 toward arrears (past-due support), using Nevada's average wage because Eric had not filed a recent financial disclosure form. On appeal, Eric raised four arguments: that he should have more time with the child and that Samantha kept the child from him; that the child support amount was wrong because of medical issues and low income; that the court should have granted him more time (a continuance) before the hearing; and that the judge was biased against him. The Court of Appeals rejected each argument and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court emphasized that it does not re-weigh evidence, that Eric did not appear at the hearing or file updated financial information, that he had notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard, and that he did not show the kind of bias that would require reversal.