PETRIUC VS. MATAS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's custody determinations for abuse of discretion, which it "will not disturb . . . absent a clear abuse of discretion." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). An abuse of discretion occurs "when a district court's decision is not supported by substantial evidence or is clearly erroneous." Bautista v. Picone, 134 Nev. 334, 336, 419 P.3d 157, 159 (2018). The governing framework for modification of primary physical custody requires that the court modify "only when (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." Ellis, 123 Nev. at 150, 161 P.3d at 242. In assessing best interests, the court "shall consider and set forth its specific findings concerning" the enumerated best interest factors and any other relevant factors under NRS 125C.0035(4). Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 451, 352 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015). On the substantial-change prong, Petriuc argued that his documents proving the Arizona guardianship demonstrated Matas's prior lack of candor. The court held that he failed to present argument as to how the district court abused its discretion in declining to modify custody on that basis, and did not argue that the additional documents constituted a substantial change affecting the children's welfare. The district court had concluded the guardianship issue was moot because the guardianship had been dissolved; Petriuc did not challenge that finding on appeal, and issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived. Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011). He also did not argue that the district court abused its discretion in finding his successful reunification did not amount to a substantial change. Absent cogent argument, the court declined to consider whether a substantial change was established. Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). On the best-interest prong, the court held that even assuming error on the substantial-change finding, Petriuc failed to argue how the district court abused its discretion in finding that modification was not in the children's best interest. The district court found it was not in the children's best interest to uproot them from Arizona where they "flourish[ed] in that environment." Petriuc offered only a conclusory statement, without reference to the statutory best interest factors under NRS 125C.0035(4), and did not assert that the findings were unsupported by substantial evidence. The court declined to consider the claim for lack of cogent argument. Edwards, 122 Nev. at 330 n.38, 130 P.3d at 1288 n.38. As to parenting time, Petriuc contended the district court abused its discretion by "sua sponte" modifying the arrangement to give Matas four weeks over the children's summer breaks. The court noted his assertion was unsupported by legal authority and did not address the district court's determination that Matas's countermotion was unopposed—which the district court, citing DCR 13(8), construed as an admission that the motion was meritorious and consent to granting it. Petriuc also did not specifically challenge the finding that the modification was in the children's best interest. The court again declined to consider the claim for lack of cogent argument.

In plain language

This case is about a long-running custody dispute between two parents of two children. Petriuc and Matas married in November 2012 and had two children. In August 2014, Matas filed for divorce and custody, and the following month the district court entered a divorce decree and custody order by default, finding that Petriuc had been served but did not file an answer. (Petriuc later disputed that he was served.) That initial order gave Matas sole legal custody and primary physical custody, with limited parenting time for Petriuc. After the decree, Matas moved with the children to Arizona without Petriuc's knowledge or court permission, living with her parents. In 2018, again without Petriuc's knowledge, she started guardianship proceedings in Arizona, and her parents became the children's legal guardians. Matas did not contact Petriuc until June 2019, when she told him she and the children were in Arizona. Petriuc visited three times between September and October 2019, after which Matas cut off communication and refused further parenting time. In December 2020, Petriuc filed his first motion to modify custody, pointing to Matas's alleged "instability," her interference with his visits, and her relocation of the children to Arizona without his consent. In April 2022, the district court granted that motion, finding a substantial change in circumstances. The court awarded joint legal custody but let Matas keep primary physical custody, concluding it was not in the children's best interests to uproot them from Arizona to move to Las Vegas. The court significantly expanded Petriuc's parenting time (including summers) and said that if Petriuc later presented additional evidence about Matas's fitness or the children's best interests, the court was "inclined to consider a further modification to joint physical custody." In July 2023, Petriuc filed a second motion to modify custody, arguing the children should relocate to Las Vegas. He attached documents proving the Arizona guardianship existed and said he had successfully reunified with the children. Matas opposed and filed a countermotion asking for four weeks of parenting time over the children's summer breaks. Petriuc did not oppose her countermotion. About a month before the hearing, Matas and her parents agreed to dissolve the Arizona guardianship, restoring her parental rights. After a March 2024 evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Petriuc's motion and granted Matas's countermotion. The court found Petriuc had not shown a substantial change in circumstances since the April 2022 order. It treated the guardianship issue as moot because the guardianship had been dissolved, and it noted that Petriuc could have obtained his new guardianship documents earlier with reasonable diligence. The court found the children were "thriving socially, academically, and developmentally in Arizona" and that uprooting them was not in their best interest. It also granted Matas four weeks of summer parenting time. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court's central reason was that Petriuc did not make developed ("cogent") legal arguments explaining how the district court abused its discretion. He did not challenge key findings—such as the mootness of the guardianship issue or the finding that his reunification with the children was not a substantial change—and he did not engage with the court's best-interest analysis. Because these arguments were not properly raised or developed, the appellate court declined to consider them and left the district court's rulings in place.