SHEEHAN VS. MANTY (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an appeal from a family court order dismissing a child custody action under NRS 125A.365 on inconvenient-forum grounds in favor of California. The Court of Appeals addressed four assignments of error. On the judicial-bias claim under NCJC Rule 2.3(B)—which provides that "[a] judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment"—the court presumed the judge was unbiased, citing Canarelli v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 12, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022). It construed the challenged remarks as factual statements about the judge's lack of knowledge of the child's whereabouts and held that Sheehan failed to show the rulings were motivated by bias or prejudice. On the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction, the court applied Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006), declining to consider the claim because it was unsupported by relevant authority or cogent argument and identified no disputed factual issues requiring resolution. On the alleged hearsay reliance, the court held that even assuming error, reversal was unwarranted because Sheehan did not dispute the underlying inconvenient-forum ruling. The court emphasized that Sheehan failed to address NRS 125A.365 in her brief and instead argued jurisdiction under NRS 125A.305 (home-state determination), thereby ignoring that NRS 125A.365(1) provides a mechanism to decline jurisdiction even when jurisdiction otherwise exists. The court cited Edwards and Hung v. Genting Berhad, 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 50, 513 P.3d 1285, 1289 (Ct. App. 2022), for the principle that an appellant must challenge the grounds relied upon by the district court to obtain reversal. On the order returning the child to Justin without best-interest analysis under NRS 125C.0035(4), the court held the district court properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction under NRS 125A.335(1), which provides that "[a] court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and . . . it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child . . . is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse." The court found the district court's oral findings—regarding the circumstances of the child's removal from California, Sheehan's active arrest warrant, and her refusal to disclose the child's location—sufficient to support the exercise of that jurisdiction. Finding no reversible error or abuse of discretion, the court affirmed.

In plain language

Brittany Sheehan and Justin Manty have one child together, T.S. Before this case began, there was no court order in place about who had custody. Brittany filed a case in Nevada asking a court to establish custody, parenting time, and child support. Justin responded by filing his own custody case in California and asking the Nevada court to dismiss Brittany's case for lack of jurisdiction (the court's authority to decide the matter). According to the opinion, Brittany then went to California, took T.S. out of her school, and brought her to Nevada. California criminal charges were filed against Brittany over that incident. After a hearing, the Nevada district court ordered Brittany to return T.S. to Justin and dismissed the Nevada case, finding that California was the more convenient place to handle the dispute because most of the evidence and witnesses were there. On appeal, Brittany made several arguments. First, she said the judge, Dedree Butler, showed bias by saying at the hearing that she "d[id]n't know if [T.S. is] safe right now" and that "for all [she] kn[e]w [T.S. is] . . . somewhere in a basement tied up." The Court of Appeals explained that judges are presumed to be unbiased, and it read the judge's comments—though it described them as "arguably hyperbolic"—as simply stating that the judge did not know where the child was because Brittany would not say. The court found no proof that the judge's rulings were driven by bias. Second, Brittany argued the court should have held an evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction. The court rejected this because she did not cite supporting legal authority, did not explain why such a hearing was needed, and did not identify any disputed facts the court would have had to resolve. Third, Brittany argued the court improperly relied on hearsay (out-of-court statements) from Justin. The court said that even if she were right, it would not change the outcome, because she never disputed the core reason for dismissal—that California was the more convenient forum. She also never addressed the specific statute the court used to dismiss the case. Finally, Brittany argued the court was wrong to order the child returned to Justin without weighing the "best interest of the child" factors. The court explained that it acted under its temporary emergency jurisdiction, pointing to how T.S. had been removed from California (with Brittany criminally charged and subject to an active arrest warrant) and to Brittany's refusal to reveal where the child was, which left the court unsure the child was safe. The court found those oral findings sufficient. Because none of Brittany's arguments succeeded, the Court of Appeals affirmed.