PREVOST VS. GRONVOLD (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's evidentiary and custody rulings for abuse of discretion. It applied the standard that "[a]n 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); see also Abid v. Abid, 133 Nev. 770, 772, 406 P.3d 476, 478 (2017) (evidentiary rulings). For custody determinations specifically, the court applied Rico v. Rodriguez, 121 Nev. 695, 701, 120 P.3d 812, 816 (2005), noting the court "will not disturb the district court's custody determination absent a clear abuse of discretion." On the "strongarming" argument, the court emphasized that in custody cases the child's welfare is paramount and that Nevada law favors examination on the merits rather than strict adherence to procedural rules, citing Blanco v. Blanco, 129 Nev. 723, 726, 311 P.3d 1170, 1172 (2013), and its holding that resolution "on a default basis without addressing the child's best interest and other relevant considerations is improper," id. at 731, 311 P.3d at 1175. The record showed the district court noted Prevost's objection, asked again whether he stipulated to review of all evidence, and received his assent ("Yes, ma'am"). The court found no ultimatum. It further held that Gronvold's use of OurFamilyWizard for disclosures was a "minor discovery blunder" that did not warrant reversal because Prevost failed to show the alleged error affected his substantial rights under NRS 47.040(1), applying the prejudice standard from Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. 446, 465, 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010) ("To establish that an error is prejudicial, the movant must show that the error affects the party's substantial rights so that, but for the alleged error, a different result might reasonably have been reached."). The court noted that Gronvold's credible testimony alone established domestic violence. On the allegations against Gronvold's partner, the court held that substantial evidence supported the district court's credibility determination. Prevost's allegations were, by his own testimony, based solely on information Gronvold allegedly provided; Gronvold testified she never made those statements. The court reasoned that once Gronvold denied making the statement, "she effectively denied the overall allegations," and it was within the district court's discretion to evaluate the parties' credibility. The court noted the district court could evaluate demeanor, tone, and body language that the appellate court could not. The court also grounded the custody determination in statute. Under NRS 125C.0035(4), the district court "shall consider and set forth its specific findings concerning" the enumerated factors, including whether a parent committed domestic violence, NRS 125C.0035(4)(k). Where a party shows domestic violence by clear and convincing evidence, custody with the perpetrator parent is presumed not to be in the child's best interest under NRS 125C.0035(5). The district court found domestic violence by clear and convincing evidence, applied the presumption against Prevost, and found he failed to rebut it. The court discussed the presumption sua sponte, noting the parties did not address it, because the district court made express findings and the presumption "strongly supports the district court's custody decision." The court observed that Prevost did not challenge the application of the presumption or the finding that he failed to rebut it. The court also noted the district court performed a relocation analysis under NRS 125C.007, though Prevost did not challenge that ruling. On the credibility-reweighing argument, the court applied Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 152, 161 P.3d 239, 244 (2007) ("[W]e leave witness credibility determinations to the district court and will not reweigh credibility on appeal."). It cited persuasive out-of-state authority, In re Alexandria P., 204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 617, 643 (Ct. App. 2016), and State v. Davie, 264 P.3d 770, 775 (Utah 2011) (quoting State v. Goodman, 763 P.2d 786, 787 (Utah 1988)). The court reasoned that finders of fact may "pick and choose" among testimony, giving different weight to different portions of a witness's testimony, and that the district court, which heard testimony via audio-visual technology, had more information than the appellate court reviewing a cold record. The court cited its own prior decision addressing "this exact argument," Williams v. Williams, No. 83263-COA, 2022 WL 3584192 (Nev. Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2022). Concluding substantial evidence supported the district court's decision, the court affirmed.

In plain language

Jashawn Prevost and Keilah Gronvold met in 2013 and had a child together in 2014. The family moved to Las Vegas in 2015 and lived there until the parents separated in 2020. After the separation, Gronvold moved to Mississippi while Prevost stayed in Las Vegas with the child. Prevost then filed a court case (representing himself) asking for custody, and Gronvold answered and filed her own counterclaim, also representing herself. The parties could not agree through mediation, so the case went to trial in April 2021. Both appeared virtually for a trial that lasted a single afternoon. Prevost called the child's teacher as a witness, who testified that the child had struggled in school until Gronvold left and that the child improved after Prevost became more involved. Prevost testified that he was the best parent and accused Gronvold's current partner of being a "pedophile and sex trafficker." By his own testimony, however, Prevost based those accusations only on what Gronvold had told him ("per her"). Gronvold testified that she wanted joint physical custody and to be able to see her child in Mississippi. She said she never told Prevost the things he used to support his accusations against her partner. She also described a relationship marked by repeated domestic violence, including beatings that required staples in her head, a black eye, being shot with a pellet gun, and threats to kill her. Neither party formally moved to admit their evidence during the trial. Before closing arguments, the judge asked whether the parties would agree to let her review each side's evidence. Prevost first objected, saying he could not open documents Gronvold sent through an app called OurFamilyWizard and that she should have sent them in another format, such as hard copy. The judge noted his objection but asked again whether he agreed to her reviewing the evidence, and Prevost answered, "Yes, ma'am." A few days later, the district court issued its decision. It found Gronvold credible, noted photographs showing her bruised and bloodied face, and found that Prevost had committed one or more acts of domestic violence proven by clear and convincing evidence resulting in severe injuries. Because of that finding, the court applied a legal presumption (an assumption the law makes unless proven otherwise) that Prevost should not receive joint or primary custody, and it found Prevost did not overcome that presumption. The court awarded primary physical custody to Gronvold and, applying the statutory factors, found the child's move to Mississippi to be in the child's best interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected all three of Prevost's arguments. It found that the record did not show the judge forced or "strongarmed" him into agreeing to the evidence review; she heard his objection, then asked again, and he agreed. The court also concluded that any problem with how Gronvold shared her documents was minor and did not change the outcome, especially because Gronvold's own credible testimony established the domestic violence. The court also held that the district court did not ignore Prevost's accusations against Gronvold's partner. Because those accusations rested entirely on what Prevost said Gronvold told him, and Gronvold denied ever making those statements, the trial judge was entitled to decide whom to believe. Finally, the court declined Prevost's request to reweigh witness credibility, explaining that trial courts, which see and hear the witnesses, are the ones who make those calls, and appellate courts do not second-guess them from a transcript. The court affirmed the custody decree.