WARREN VS. AHYANG (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Standard of review: The court reviews a district court's child custody decisions for an abuse of discretion, and the decision must be supported by substantial evidence, "evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 428, 216 P.3d 213, 226 (2009) (quoting Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007)). Motions for a new trial are likewise reviewed for abuse of discretion. Gunderson v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 130 Nev. 67, 74, 319 P.3d 606, 611 (2014). Custody framework and application: The sole consideration in child custody is the best interest of the child. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244. That determination requires the district court to consider the enumerated factors of NRS 125C.0035(4)(a)-(l), and the district court must issue detailed findings under NRS 125C.0035(4). The district court held an evidentiary hearing, heard testimony from both parties, and issued findings addressing each factor. The court found no factor favored Warren; factors (c), (e), (f), and (g) favored Ahyang, and factors (a), (b), (d), (h)-(l) were neutral or inapplicable. Addressing Warren's argument that the court impermissibly focused on his mental health (factor (f)), the court reasoned that even assuming arguendo that mental health was not an issue, the remaining factors would still support the award, so Warren did not demonstrate that the absence of the alleged error would have changed the result. The court declined to reweigh credibility determinations or other evidence on appeal. See Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244; Quintero v. McDonald, 116 Nev. 1181, 1183, 14 P.3d 522, 523 (2000). Drug testing: Under NRS 125C.0045(a), a district court in a custody action may enter an order "for the custody, care, education, maintenance and support of the minor child as appears in his or her best interest." The district court found that Ahyang "used to have a drug issue, but she has fixed it," based on three negative drug tests and a review of CPS records. Applying the substantial-evidence standard from Rivero, 125 Nev. at 428, 216 P.3d at 226, the court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order drug testing. Stipulations and orders: The two stipulations and orders (dated June 9, 2020, and June 10, 2020) were signed by Warren's counsel. EDCR 7.50 provides that a stipulation is effective when subscribed by the party's attorney. The court declined to decide for the first time on appeal that Warren did not consent, citing Douglas Disposal, Inc. v. Wee Haul, LLC, 123 Nev. 552, 557 n.6, 170 P.3d 508, 512 n.6 (2007), and invoking the waiver doctrine. It applied EDCR 7.50 and enforced the orders based on counsel's signature. New trial: A party may move for a new trial under NRCP 59(a)(1) on the enumerated grounds, including irregularity in the proceedings and accident or surprise that ordinary prudence could not have guarded against. The court found no palpable abuse of discretion. The record showed Warren never disclosed his medical records before the first day of the hearing; when he tried to introduce them, Ahyang objected. The district court excluded them only for day one to allow Ahyang time to review, and invited Warren to renew the request on day two, which he did not do. The court concluded Warren's failure could not be attributed to the district court and affirmed the denial of the new-trial motion.

In plain language

Andrew Warren and Aimee Jung Ahyang were never married but have one child together. In early 2019, Warren asked the court to give him primary physical custody. Ahyang answered and asked for primary physical custody herself, citing Warren's emotional and mental status. Warren, in turn, argued that Ahyang had issues with drug usage. The trial court held a two-day evidentiary hearing where both parents testified, then issued detailed written findings and awarded the parents joint legal custody while giving Ahyang primary physical custody. Warren asked the trial court for a new trial and for reconsideration. When that request was denied, he appealed. The Court of Appeals is not a place where the whole case is retried; instead, the appellate judges check whether the trial court had a reasonable basis for its decision and did not misuse its discretion. Warren's main complaint on appeal was that the trial court leaned too heavily on his mental health when it decided custody. The appellate court disagreed, saying the record did not support that claim. Nevada law requires the trial court to weigh a list of specific factors when deciding what is in a child's best interest. Reviewing the trial court's written findings, the appellate court noted that none of those factors favored Warren; several favored Ahyang, and the rest were neutral or did not apply. The court added that even if Warren's mental health had been treated as a non-issue, the other factors would still have supported the award to Ahyang. Warren also argued the trial court should have ordered Ahyang to undergo drug testing. The appellate court noted that the trial court found Ahyang "used to have a drug issue, but she has fixed it," based on three negative drug tests she presented and a review of CPS records. The appellate court concluded that was enough evidence to support the trial court's conclusion. Warren further objected to two stipulations and orders about vacation and holiday time that were entered after the hearing, saying the court never asked whether he agreed and never required his signature. The appellate court observed that Warren's own attorney had signed both stipulations, and that a local court rule allows a stipulation to be entered when it is signed by a party's attorney. Because Warren had not presented evidence below that he did not consent, the appellate court declined to consider that argument for the first time on appeal. Finally, Warren argued he deserved a new trial because the trial court excluded his medical records and because he was surprised by his inability to admit them. The appellate court explained that the trial court did not exclude the records entirely; it excluded them only for the first day of the hearing so Ahyang could review them, and it told Warren he could renew his request on day two. Warren never renewed the request. Because Warren failed to disclose the records before the hearing and then failed to seek their admission on day two, the appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial. The judgment was affirmed.