Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Divorce Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Las Vegas, Nevada family law lawyer represented appellant contesting child support and attorney fee award orders.

Appellant
the district court's use of NRS 125C.0035(5)'s best-interest rebuttable presumption based on domestic violence to support its decision, arguing that it improperly relied on a 2018 temporary protection order (TPO) action to find that he engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence.[2] But the district court appropriately relied
on the proceedings from the TPO action, by way of judicial notice, as they addressed issues relevant to the child custody determination and satisfied the requirements for judicial notice of records in closely-related cases.[3] See NRS 47.150(1) (providing that a court may take judicial notice sua sponte); NRS 47.130(2) (providing that a judicially-noticed fact must be "[e]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"); NRS 125C.0035 (listing factors to consider in child custody determinations, including "the level of conflict between the parents," the parents' ability to cooperate, and "[w]hether either parent. . . has engaged in an act of domestic violence against . . . any other person residing with the child"); Mack v. Estate of Mack, 125 Nev. 80, 91-92, 206 P.3d 98, 106 (2009) (noting an exception to the general rule...
the district court's use of NRS 125C.0035(5)'s best-interest rebuttable presumption based on domestic violence to support its decision, arguing that it improperly relied on a 2018 temporary protection order (TPO) action to find that he engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence.[2] But the district court appropriately relied
on the proceedings from the TPO action, by way of judicial notice, as they addressed issues relevant to the child custody determination and satisfied the requirements for judicial notice of records in closely-related cases.[3] See NRS 47.150(1) (providing that a court may take judicial notice sua sponte); NRS 47.130(2) (providing that a judicially-noticed fact must be "[e]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"); NRS 125C.0035 (listing factors to consider in child custody determinations, including "the level of conflict between the parents," the parents' ability to cooperate, and "[w]hether either parent. . . has engaged in an act of domestic violence against . . . any other person residing with the child"); Mack v. Estate of Mack, 125 Nev. 80, 91-92, 206 P.3d 98, 106 (2009) (noting an exception to the general rule...

Todd also claims that the custody order violated SCR 251, which states that the district court shall "resolve the issues affecting the custody or visitation of the child or children within six months of the date that such issues are contested by the filing of a responsive pleading that contests the custody or visitation issues." However, the rule further allows extensions of time for "[extraordinary cases that present unforeseeable circumstances" so long as the district court enters "specific findings of fact regarding the circumstances that justify the extension of time." Id. Here, the district court made the required findings to justify an extension of time, and the record supports those findings, including that Todd sought several extensions of time, including four requests to continue the trial; that he...
"caused further delay by filing several failed motions to disqualify the presiding judge; and that the Covid-19 pandemic caused a continuance from approximately March 2020 to October 2020. Under these facts, we conclude the district court complied with SCR 251." Phillips v. Phillips (Nev. 2022)

Outcome: The judgments of the district court were affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: