ST. GEORGE VS. ST. GEORGE (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Court of Appeals reviewed both the custody modification and the relocation determination for abuse of discretion. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007) (custody); Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1227 (2004) (relocation). Factual findings are affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, defined as evidence "which a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. The sole consideration in a custody determination is the best interest of the child. NRS 125C.0035(1); Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 451, 352 P.3d 1139, 1143 (2015). The court presumed the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining the child's best interest. Flynn, 120 Nev. at 440, 92 P.3d at 1226-27. The court set out the relocation framework. Under NRS 125C.007(1), where a parent seeks primary physical custody for relocation, the district court must determine whether the relocating parent has a sensible, good faith reason for relocating; that the move is not intended to deprive the non-relocating parent of parenting time; that the child's best interest is served by allowing relocation; and that relocation will result in an actual advantage benefiting the child and relocating parent. If that threshold is met, the district court must consider the factors in NRS 125C.007(2): whether the move will likely improve the quality of life for the child and relocating parent; whether the relocating parent's motives are to frustrate the non-relocating parent's custodial time; whether the relocating parent will comply with visitation orders; whether the non-relocating parent's opposition is honorable; and whether there will be a realistic opportunity for the non-relocating parent to maintain a visitation schedule that preserves and fosters the relationship with the child. Applying this framework, the court found that the district court made specific findings as to all factors under NRS 125C.007(1) and (2), and made factual findings on each best-interest factor under NRS 125C.0035(4). The district court found that both parents have great relationships with the children, work well together, and cooperate to meet the children's needs; that the children could maintain a relationship with their half-sibling by relocating; and that Brent previously impeded Caitlin's time with the children, such that Caitlin was the parent more likely to allow frequent associations and a continuing relationship. See NRS 125C.0035(4). The Court of Appeals concluded that these findings were supported by substantial evidence. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. The court addressed Brent's specific appellate argument - that the district court failed to compare the children's lives in Las Vegas versus Orlando. The court observed that Brent did not assert the findings lacked substantial-evidence support. It held that although the written findings did not contain a side-by-side comparison, the record showed the district court considered Brent's Las Vegas evidence, specifically finding the children were doing well in school, had a nice home with Brent, that Brent is a great father, and that the children have extended family in Las Vegas. Reiterating that it does not reweigh credibility or evidence on appeal, the court cited Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244, and Quintero v. McDonald, 116 Nev. 1181, 1183, 14 P.3d 522, 523 (2000). It found no abuse of discretion. On Brent's constitutional argument - that his right to parent was violated because the district court weighed the children's relationship with their new sibling above that right - the court found no basis for relief. It first noted Brent offered no cogent argument or supporting authority, citing Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Regardless, the court determined the district court properly considered the sibling relationship within the best-interest analysis under NRS 125C.0035(4)(i), and that this factor, along with the finding under NRS 125C.0035(4)(c) that Caitlin was more likely to allow frequent association and a continuing relationship, supported the modification. Because the district court properly considered the relocation factors under NRS 125C.007 and the children's best interest, the court discerned no basis for relief and affirmed.

In plain language

This is a family-law appeal about which parent gets primary custody of two children and whether one parent may move out of state with them. Brent and Caitlin St. George divorced in October 2020 and initially shared custody equally - both joint legal custody (the right to make major decisions for the children) and joint physical custody (roughly shared parenting time). In March 2021, Caitlin asked the court to change that arrangement. She wanted primary physical custody so that she could move with the children to Orlando, Florida. After a hearing where the judge heard testimony and reviewed documents from both sides, the trial judge sided with Caitlin, giving her primary custody and permission to relocate. Brent then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Nevada. The appeals court explained that it does not re-decide these cases from scratch. Instead, it checks whether the trial judge "abused" her discretion - meaning made a decision without adequate support in the evidence or law. The court will keep the trial judge's factual findings so long as they are backed by "substantial evidence," which the court described as evidence a reasonable person could accept as enough to support the decision. In custody matters, the guiding question is the best interest of the child. Brent's main argument was not that the evidence failed to support the judge's findings. Instead, he complained that the judge did not directly compare, side by side, what the children's lives would look like in Las Vegas with him versus in Orlando with Caitlin. The appeals court rejected this argument. It noted that even though the written order did not lay out a literal side-by-side comparison, the judge clearly considered Brent's evidence about the children's Las Vegas life - finding, for example, that the children were doing well in school, had a nice home with Brent, that Brent is a great father, and that the children have extended family in Las Vegas. The judge nonetheless concluded that moving to Orlando with Caitlin served the children's best interest, partly because the children could maintain a relationship with a half-sibling and because the judge found Caitlin more likely to allow the children to keep a relationship with the other parent. The appeals court emphasized that it does not reweigh witness credibility or the evidence on appeal. Brent also argued, briefly, that his constitutional right to parent was violated because the judge gave too much weight to the children's relationship with the new sibling. The appeals court declined to grant relief on this point, in part because Brent did not develop the argument or cite supporting authority, and in part because considering a sibling relationship is a permitted part of the best-interest analysis. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision.