RAMSEIER VS. RIVAS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's discretionary family-law determinations deferentially. Best-interest determinations are "reviewed deferentially" (Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 450, 352 P.3d 1139, 1142-43 (2015)). Child support orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion (Edgington v. Edgington, 119 Nev. 577, 588, 80 P.3d 1282, 1290 (2003)), with an abuse occurring where the decision is not supported by substantial evidence (Miller v. Miller, 134 Nev. 120, 125, 412 P.3d 1081, 1085 (2018)), and the court will uphold findings not clearly erroneous and supported by substantial evidence (Hargrove v. Ward, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 14, 506 P.3d 329, 331 (2022)). Judicial bias. The court applied the presumption that "[a] judge is presumed to be unbiased" (Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009), overruled in part on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 1, 501 P.3d 980 (2022)), and the principle that remarks made before all evidence is presented do not indicate disqualifying bias so long as the judge remains open-minded (Cameron v. State, 114 Nev. 1281, 1283, 968 P.2d 1169, 1171 (1998)). Because the record showed a thorough multi-day evidentiary hearing, Ramseier did not overcome the presumption. The court further held the chief district judge did not abuse her discretion in denying the disqualification motion because Ramseier alleged no legally cognizable grounds supporting a reasonable inference of bias (Rivero, 125 Nev. at 439, 216 P.3d at 233). Consideration of academic progress at Sig Rogich. The court declined to reach this claim because Ramseier cited no legal authority barring the district court from considering such evidence (Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006)), and because he did not object below and thus waived the claim (Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981)). Alternative schools. The court found the claim without merit because the record showed the district court considered evidence on both Bob Miller Middle School and Calvary Chapel Middle School during the hearing and in its order, consistent with the requirement that the order "tie the child['s] best interest, as informed by specific, relevant findings . . . to the custody determination made" (Arcella v. Arcella, 133 Nev. 868, 872, 407 P.3d 341, 346 (2017)). School choice / determination by Moldestad's residence. The district court analyzed all ten Arcella factors, finding most neutral or inapplicable, and identified factors favoring Sig Rogich (extracurricular interests and each school's ability to satisfy them; disruption of academic progress; and commute/logistical concerns). Ramseier did not challenge the application of the Arcella factors themselves, arguing instead that the order rendered school choice nonmodifiable. The court rejected that reading: the order expressly permitted future agreement, mediation, or motion practice if Moldestad moved zones, and an education order "may be modified at any time if in the child's best interest" (NRS 125C.00045(1)(a)). Because Ramseier had not yet been aggrieved and had not shown modification avenues were foreclosed, the claim failed (Edwards, 122 Nev. at 330 n.38, 130 P.3d at 1288 n.38; Khoury v. Seastrand, 132 Nev. 520, 539, 377 P.3d 81, 94 (2016); cf. Valley Bank of Nev. v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 446, 874 P.2d 729, 734 (1994)). Synchronized swimming (participation). The court held there was no abuse of discretion in ordering Ramseier to ensure N.R.'s participation during his parenting time. The record showed he had agreed by taking N.R. to related activities and conceding support in his testimony, and he could not assume an inconsistent position on appeal (Nev. Power Co. v. 8 Kids, LLC, 129 Nev. 436, 444, 302 P.3d 1155, 1160 (2013), as modified (July 24, 2013)). The district court also made specific best-interest findings (Davis, 131 Nev. at 450, 352 P.3d at 1142-43). The 2020 agreement / modification of custody. Applying the modification standard - "(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" (Romano, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 1, 501 P.3d at 983 (quoting Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 150, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007))) - the court held there was no substantial change in circumstances. The 2016 order and 2020 agreement had substantially similar schedules amounting to joint physical custody, neither provided for an exactly equal timeshare, and the 2020 agreement covered only the already-completed 2020-2021 school year. Ramseier also failed to show prejudice (Wyeth v. Rowatt, 126 Nev. 446, 465, 244 P.3d 765, 778 (2010)). Child support - upward deviation. Parents have a duty to support their children (NRS 125B.020(1)). A district court must follow statutory guidelines when calculating the initial award and when deviating (NAC 425.100(3); NRS 125B.080; Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1021, 922 P.2d 541, 544-45 (1996)), and must set forth specific findings stating the basis for a deviation and what the obligation would have been absent it (NAC 425.100(3)(a)-(b)), with express findings required even where the reasoning is apparent from the record (Jackson v. Jackson, 111 Nev. 1551, 1553, 907 P.2d 990, 992 (1995)). The $2,000 monthly obligation was stipulated (NAC 425.100(2)), and the court made express findings that synchronized swimming expenses were additional costs beyond N.R.'s basic needs and that participation was in her best interest, warranting the upward deviation (NAC 425.150(g)). The court also rejected the household-income child support argument because Ramseier stipulated to the $2,000 obligation and could not take an inconsistent position on appeal (Nev. Power Co., 129 Nev. at 444, 302 P.3d at 1160).

In plain language

This case is a dispute between two parents, James Ramseier and Nohelia Moldestad, who were never married but have one child together, named N.R. in the opinion. The child is about eleven years old. The parents had been sharing custody under a 2016 court order that set a parenting-time schedule and required them to agree in writing about the child's extracurricular activities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the parents made a separate written agreement in 2020 for the 2020-2021 school year. That agreement covered how the child would be schooled (homeschooling for fifth grade) and a parenting-time schedule the parents described as each having the child "50% of the time." This 2020 agreement was never filed with the court. When disagreements arose, both parents went back to court. Moldestad asked to change the custody and holiday schedules, to use an app called Our Family Wizard to communicate, and for attorney fees. Ramseier asked the court to decide which middle school the child would attend, to change the schedule and holiday plan, and for attorney fees. They disagreed about which school was best, about the child's participation in synchronized swimming and how it affected Ramseier's time with the child, and about how child support should be calculated. The district court held a hearing and eventually ruled that the child would attend Sig Rogich Middle School (the school in Moldestad's zone), applying a set of ten factors the Nevada Supreme Court laid out in an earlier case, Arcella, for deciding a child's schooling. The court also ordered Ramseier to take the child to synchronized swimming during his parenting time and to share equally in the recurring costs of that activity, on top of his $2,000-per-month child support. On child support, the record showed that Ramseier had agreed (stipulated) to the $2,000 monthly amount. On appeal, Ramseier raised eight arguments, including that the judge was biased, that the court wrongly considered the child's progress at her current school, that the court did not fully analyze his alternative school choices, that tying school to Moldestad's residence was improper, that he should not be forced to take the child to an activity he did not agree to, that the court ignored the 2020 agreement's 50/50 schedule, that child support calculations should have accounted for both parents' household incomes, and that the upward deviation in child support for synchronized swimming was improper. The appeals court rejected each argument. On judicial bias, it found Ramseier had not overcome the presumption that judges are unbiased. On several points, it found he either failed to support his argument with legal authority, failed to object below, or took positions on appeal that contradicted what he had argued or conceded in the trial court (for example, he had stipulated to the child support amount and had testified he supported the swimming activity). On the school-choice order, the court noted that the order was not permanently fixed - it allowed for future modification if Moldestad moved or if the parents could not agree - so Ramseier had not shown he was harmed. On the 2020 agreement, the court found the parenting schedules were substantially the same as the 2016 order, that the 2020 agreement was only for a school year that had already ended, and that no substantial change in circumstances justified modification. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in full.