Las Vegas Family Law Appeals Attorneys

Published Opinions:

Published opinions are cases that the appellate court has determined to be of such importance, that they become law that governs all cases in Nevada, not just the parties to that particular case. Our lead attorney, Emily McFarling, Esq. has been the lead counsel on some of the primary case law that applies in family court in Nevada, winning almost all of them. These cases are detailed below.

Kragen v. Kragen, 140 Nevada Advance Opinion 49 (2024)

In this case we successfully defended against a Writ Petition filed by our client’s ex-wife challenging a Nevada District Court’s jurisdiction over child custody in their divorce. The jurisdictional issue arose after the ex-wife unilaterally relocated the parties’ children from Nevada to California. A few weeks later, our client filed for divorce in Nevada, while his ex-wife filed in California. The Nevada Court of Appeals issued a published decision in our favor. The ruling clarifies the meaning of ‘temporary absence’ in custody cases and requires Nevada district courts to consider the ‘totality of the circumstances’ when determining whether an absence is temporary in determining if Nevada has jurisdiction to hear a child custody case.

Ramos v. Franklin, 139 Nevada Advance Opinion 6 (2023)

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s rights to not have a grandparent visitation order entered against her. The Nevada Supreme Court used this opportunity to clarify that in a petition for visitation, where the parents have joint custody, the focus is on the petitioner’s access to the children. NRS 125C.050(3). Because the grandparents had regular access to the children, it was irrelevant to the District Court that our client denied visits. In a published opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that the grandparents’ concern for the volatility of their relationships with either parent does not constitute an unreasonable restriction and, concluded that NRS 125C.050 is ambiguous, therefore they must look beyond the statute. If one parent provides the petitioners with sufficient contact with the children so that their visits are not denied or unreasonably restricted under NRS 125.050(3), the petition fails, regardless of whether the other parent provides contact.

Rosie M. and Henry O. vs. Ignacio A., Jr. 138 Nevada Advance Opinion 49 (2022)

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s paternity rights to his child. When the minor child was born the Appellants executed a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity with another man, knowing that our client could be the father. The district court concluded that biological testing overcame the third party’s Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and that a paternity dispute is not time-barred until the minor child reaches 21 years of age. The district court entered an order concluding that our client is the minor child’s father and for joint physical custody of the minor child. The mother appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our client’s position and affirmed the district court’s ruling for our client’s paternity and joint physical custody. 

Eggleston v. Stuart, 495 P.3d 482 (2021)

Our client filed a civil rights case against Department of Family Services and other defendants regarding their handling of a juvenile case that resulted in him losing all contact with his children. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that first the District Court erred by claiming that our client was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a § 1983. The Supreme Court relied on the reasoning that our client’s claim was a substantive due process violation not a procedural due process violation because the fundamental right to bring up children is linked to the right to Liberty. Substantive due process violations are actionable when the wrongful act occurs, so the exhaustion exception applied to procedural due process claims does not apply here. The Supreme Court of Nevada also found that the District Court erred by linking the DFS findings to our client’s complaint. The complaint for a § 1983 civil rights violation did not have an administrative remedy and thus the District Court erred in dismissed the § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Finally, the Supreme Court of Nevada found that it was improper to dismiss our client’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the claim did not arise from an administrative process, thus could not be remedy by an administrative remedy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Nevada found in favor of our client and reversed and remanded the dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights violation, the dismissal of his associated tort claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the dismissal of punitive damages. 

Nance v. Ferraro, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 21 (2018)

In this case, the trial judge in a custody modification trial had excluded all evidence of events that had occurred prior to the last custody order and awarded custody to the father. We appealed and the Nevada Court of Appeals in a published decision reversed the decision and evidence and remanded back to the district court. Our client’s custody was reinstated and it was clarified that she may present evidence of prior domestic violence at a new trial.

Nguyen v. Boynes, 133 Nev.Adv.Op. 32 (2017)

In this case, two gay men who were previously in a relationship were engaged in a paternity and child custody case in district court. One of the men adopted a child on his own but the other party was involved in the adoption process and cared for the child in his home half the week. The District Court established rights for the second father through paternity statues. On appeal the Nevada Supreme Court awarded rights to the second father under the limited theory of equitable adoption.

Davis v. Ewalefo, 352 P.3d 1139 (2015)

In this case, the trial judge denied the father, our client, the right to exercise his visitation in a foreign country where he was employed. We appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. The appeal focused on a parent’s constitutional rights to parent and exercise his visitation where he sees fit so long as the child was not in danger. In an en banc published decision, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case back to the district court for our client to be allowed visitation in Africa where he lived.

Bluestein v. Bluestein, 345 P.3d 1044 (2015)

In this case, the trial judge granted our client primary physical custody when the parties had a prior order that called custody joint, but a timeshare where the father had less than 40% of the time. The Nevada Supreme Court held in a published opinion that a court must consider the child’s best interest and not rely solely on de facto custody when modifying custody. The case was remanded and our client retained primary physical custody.

Druckman v. Ruscitti, 327 P.3d 511 (2014)

In this case, the trial judge granted our client permission to relocate to California with her child after she had left Nevada with the child without the father’s permission.  The decision was affirmed and our client was able to retain custody in California based on the child’s best interests.

Lopez v. Lopez, 139 Nevada Advance Opinion 54 (2023)

In this matter, we represented the Appellant in an appeal of a divorce decree involving the division of assets held within a family trust. The Court of Appeals issued an authored opinion, holding that because the spouses are the materially interested parties and divorce revokes any device granted by the settlor to their former spouse in a revocable inter vivos trust, the trust itself is not required to be named as a necessary party in the divorce where the spouses are co-settlors, co-trustees, and beneficiaries. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s distribution decision and affirmed the decree of divorce.

Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660 (2009)

In this case our client relocated from Nevada to Japan with the minor children without the mother’s permission. The mother filed a divorce and custody action in Nevada after the children had been in Japan for eight months. The district court took jurisdiction and ordered the client to return with the children—citing the Hague Convention to which Japan was not a signatory. The client refused to return the children and did not appear for trial, although he was represented by counsel at the trial. The trial judge awarded custody and all the community property to the mother at trial as a sanction for the father not appearing.

I appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. In a published opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court en banc held it was improper to default a litigant when he had an attorney appear on his behalf, and even in the event of a default, the Judge should have divided community property pursuant to the law, which would be equally. The Nevada Supreme Court also held in situations where a party may have misled the other party as to their intentions when leaving a State, the time period for jurisdiction begins when the party becomes aware the other party has actually relocated and does not intend to return.

We represented the client also on remand where the court relinquished child custody jurisdiction and made orders based upon all of the evidence and re-divided the community property equally. My client is still in Japan with his children.

 

Unpublished Appeal Decisions:

Pierce v. Pierce,  86714

In this case, we successfully defended our client in an appeal filed by her ex-husband challenging a post-decree order modifying child support, ordering reimbursement for health insurance overpayments, and awarding attorney fees. In its post-decree order, the district court found that our client had overpaid her share of the parties’ child’s health insurance costs and ordered her ex-husband to reimburse her. He appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our client’s position and upheld the reimbursement order.

Ollerton v. Ayala,  86370–COA

In this appeal, we represented the Appellant in contesting a district court order that denied her request to relocate with her minor children from Nevada to Ohio. Attorney McFarling argued that the district court erred by ruling on the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing and by dismissing a domestic violence incident as irrelevant to the children’s best interests. She contended that this led to an incorrect conclusion that the Appellant had not shown how the relocation would benefit the children. Citing Nevada law, she asserted that the Appellant met the statutory requirements for an evidentiary hearing by establishing prima facie status with relevant facts. Furthermore, Attorney McFarling emphasized that relocating would indeed benefit the children, highlighting that witnessing domestic violence against a parent is not in their best interest. She urged the Nevada Court of Appeals to remand the case to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Court granted our request in the appeal, reversed the district court’s order, noting that the district court had failed to properly consider all relevant facts, particularly the domestic violence witnessed by the children.

Kemp v. Turqueza, 86347

In this case, we represented the Respondent in an appeal filed by the father of her child, who challenged a district court order dismissing his custody complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellant argued that the district court misapplied the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and improperly concluded that the Philippines, rather than Nevada, was the child’s home state. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed the district court’s decision, rejecting the Appellant’s appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with Attorney McFarling’s arguments, concluding that under Nevada statute, a foreign country is treated as a state for purposes of applying the UCCJEA. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found that the District Court properly determined the Philippines had jurisdiction to determine custody, as the child, despite frequent trips to Nevada, spent more time in the Philippines during the relevant six-month period prior to the filing of the custody complaint and always returned there. Thus, the Philippines was deemed the child’s home state, granting them jurisdiction over custody in this case. As a result, our client did not have to fight a custody battle for her children in Nevada when she and the child lived in the Philippines.  

Franklin v. Franklin, 84334

In this case, we represented the Appellant in an appeal and cross-appeal from a divorce ruling involving domestic violence, child custody, property division, alimony, and attorney fees. The Nevada Supreme Court issued a mixed decision, upholding parts of the Divorce Decree and reversing others. It found the district court applied too high a standard to Appellant’s domestic violence claims and wrongly excluded a key photo of her injuries. In an en banc decision, the Supreme Court reversed the attorney fees awarded to the Respondent, stating the lower court failed to justify its decision. 

Brofman v. Fiore, 86673

In this matter, we represented the appellant in an appeal challenging a district court order denying his counterclaim for loan repayment from his ex-wife. Initially, the appellant filed a pro se appeal in November 2021 concerning child support, child custody, and loan repayment. While that appeal was pending, the district court improperly reopened the case in April 2023, instructing the appellant to refile his counterclaim, only to dismiss it on statute-of-limitations grounds. The appellant appealed the April 2023 orders and retained attorney McFarling for representation. Attorney McFarling argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction issue the April 2023 orders while the original 2021 appeal was still pending. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that the April 2023 orders were void ab initio. Furthermore, it clarified that our client may still pursue his original counterclaim or seek leave to amend it in in the district court.

Luciano v. Luciano, 83522-COA

In this case, we successfully defended our client in an appeal filed by his ex-wife challenging the decree of divorce and two post-decree orders denying her relief under NRCP 60(b). The Appellant argued that the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on her domestic violence allegations, not considering the best interest factors in its custody determination, and awarding custody to our client as punishment for her failure to appear at trial. The Court of Appeals found these arguments untimely for a direct custody challenge and unsupported pursuant to NRCP 60(b), emphasizing that the custody determination was based on evidence presented at trial—not by default or as a punitive measure.  It also noted procedural errors in Appellant’s NRCP 60(b) motions and found her arguments on appeal neither cogent nor supported by relevant authority, thus affirming the district court’s decision.

Crosier v. Crosier, 87206-COA

In this appeal, the Nevada Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a child custody order, finding that the district court failed to fully assess the statutory best interest factors for the child. The appeal arose after the Respondent was granted primary custody of one of the parties’ minor children, despite the Appellant seeking sole custody and raising concerns about the Respondent, including allegations of past domestic violence. Although there was evidence in the record, the district court did not properly address or investigate these allegations and omitted key findings in its custody order. The appellate court determined this was an abuse of discretion and ordered the district court to hold a new evidentiary hearing to thoroughly assess the child’s best interests, including a more comprehensive evaluation of the domestic violence claims.

Rosiak v. Rosiak, 85464-COA & 86632-COA

In this case, we represented the Appellant in appealing a divorce decree, a post-decree order reducing child support arrears to judgment, and a post-decree order awarding attorney’s fees to the Respondent. The Nevada Court of Appeals vacated the child support arrears award to the Respondent, noting that the District Court did not adequately consider the Appellant’s payments made through his social security benefits. It also vacated the attorney’s fees award, as the Respondent could no longer be deemed the sole prevailing party following the vacated child support order.

Rodriguez v. Leon-Yanez, 85289- COA

In this matter, we defended the Respondent against her ex-husband’s appeal challenging the denial of his motion to set aside both the original and amended divorce decrees. The Appellant argued that he lacked legal counsel, which prevented him from submitting a pre-trial memorandum or attending a calendar call, thereby invalidating the decree. He also claimed the division of community property was unfair, particularly regarding the award of an out-of-state house, and that the court failed to accurately consider his income when determining child support, alimony, and attorney’s fees. Attorney McFarling successfully defended the Respondent by referencing the Eighth Judicial District Court’s rules, which emphasize that pro se litigants must follow court procedures. She also countered the ex-husband’s misleading claims about the nature of the out-of-state house. The Nevada Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s authority to issue the divorce decree, confirming the out-of-state house as our client’s sole property. However, it remanded the case for the District Court to reassess the child support and attorney’s fees, highlighting that the ex-husband’s income had not been adequately considered and instructing corrections to typographical errors in the alimony award. This was a great outcome for our client, particularly since the out-of-state house was the most significant asset involved.

Espinoza, 83862-COA

In this case, the district court correctly awarded our client, in her divorce, her community share on the real property the husband purchased before the marriage, pursuant to Nevada’s long-standing case law: Malmquist v. Malmquist, 106 Nev. 231, 792 P.2d 372 (1990.) The husband appealed the divorce decree arguing that the court should have applied the discretionary formula in a California case cited in Malmquist allowing him the full premarital appreciation value. On appeal, he alleged that the deviation would have been proper because our client only lived in the property for three months after marriage, and he paid the mortgage prior to and during marriage. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order because the husband failed to show that using the discretionary formula was warranted, the district court relied on substantial evidence and did not abuse its discretion to reach its decision. As such, our client won the appeal.

Arzola v. Estrada, 83941-COA

In this case, our client appealed a district court decree establishing child custody and support of a minor child. In addition, our client appeals a post-decree order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the award of child support and the order granting the adverse party attorney’s fees and costs.

Baptista v. Baugh, 76649-COA

In this case, the adverse party filed an appeal challenging a final custody order granting both parties joint physical custody. The Nevada Court of Appeals found that the Missouri order expressly stated both parties would have joint physical custody but recognized that the child would begin school in Las Vegas at the start of the next school year. Our client then presented the Missouri court with evidence of her relocation to Las Vegas, and a superseding addendum was issued providing both parents with alternating weeks of parenting time. Despite the adverse party’s argument that the first issued order granted him primary physical custody, both parties testified that the current joint physical timeshare was beneficial to the child. In conclusion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Missouri order and addendum both gave the parties joint physical custody and that our client was not required to prove a change of circumstances under Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 150, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007), since the parties were already exercising joint physical custody and departing from the Missouri court’s order was unnecessary.

Pavon v. Pavon, 83376-COA

In this case, the adverse party filed an appeal challenging the district court’s order denying his motion to modify custody and a post-judgement order awarding our client attorney fees and costs, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when denying his motion to modify the parenting time schedule. Specifically, the adverse party argues that the court’s findings related to the best interest factors were not supported by substantial evidence. Our client opposed this appeal. The Nevada Court of Appeals reviewed the District Court’s 18-page order addressing each of the best interest of the child factors under NRS 125.0035 and the child custody decision for an abuse of discretion. In reaching a child custody decision, the court considered evidence that the adverse party had entered a nolo contendere plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 300 U.S. 25 (1970), related to sexual coercion of the minor’s sibling, who had since emancipated. In addition, the court found that the parties demonstrated a high level of conflict with each other and that our client had been the sole caretaker of the minor, during the adverse party’s incarceration. The Nevada Court of Appeals found that the District Court expressly considered evidence of the adverse party’s Alford plea, which is impermissible under Nevada Law; however, found that the District Court’s error was harmless given the findings regarding the other best interest factors. In conclusion, the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining the child’s best interest and the court’s parenting time determination was supported by substantial evidence and that the adverse party failed to present cogent argument to challenge the awarded attorney’s fees.

Franceschi, 63655

In this case, the district court denied my client’s request to establish paternity over his infant son after the mother placed another man’s name on the birth certificate through an affidavit of paternity that declares that man is the only possible father of the child. We appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of our client’s paternity action and remanded back to the district court with instructions as to how a fraudulent affidavit of paternity should be viewed. We represented the father on remand as well. My client is now the child’s confirmed father and currently has joint physical custody of his son.

Kashuba, 69829

In this case, I represented a mother on appeal of a district court order granting the father primary custody despite there being prior evidence of domestic violence by him. The court had excluded certain evidence at trial based on it having occurred prior to the most recent custodial order.  I appealed. The Appellate Court reversed the decision and remanded with the district court to conduct a new trial and allow in the previously excluded evidence. In addition to the appeal, we represented the mother in the second trial where she presented the previously excluded evidence and obtained primary physical custody. Our client now has custody of her son in Canada.

Hughes, 66436

In this case, the trial judge had allowed our client to have custody of her children in another state after she had left Nevada without the father’s permission. On appeal, the father argued that the trial judge should have considered a domestic violence incident where our client has done a submittal, which is not admissible into evidence and that she should have not obtained custody after removing the children from Nevada without his consent. The Nevada Supreme Court upheld the district court’s decision. My client still lives out of state with her children in her custody.

Kingsbury, 68094

In this case, the district court enforced the terms of a decade-old decree of legal separation into a divorce decree as a final dissolution of the parties’ rights. The wife appealed. The appellate court upheld the district court’s decision as the legal separation was an agreement by the party to end the community and settle all marital issues, including alimony. Our client’s final divorce decree remained intact.

Smith, 66983

In this case, the district court ordered a Mother to have no contact with her daughter because the daughter expressed a desire to not see her Mother. We appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court found it improper to issue such an order as it was tantamount to terminating Mother’s parental rights without due process or cause.  

Guardianship of TTH and TAH, 73932-COA

In this case, I represented a mother who had signed over guardianship to her sister nine years earlier and had been unable to get the guardianship terminated. I successfully represented her through trial in her last attempt at terminating the guardianship and her children were returned to her care. The sister appealed the decision and I represented the mother in the appeal which resulted in my client retaining full rights to her children.

Madrid v. Hernandez, 75461-COA

In this case, I represented a father on appeal after he had been awarded primary physical custody at trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody award and my client retains custody of his child.

Sell v. Diehl- 74916-COA

In this case, I represented a mother in defending a custody case filed by her sister. The custody case was dismissed and the sister appealed. I represented the mother in the appeal which resulted in the dismissal being affirmed and my client retaining custody of her children.

Carter v. Ducksworth, 81966-COA

In this case, we represented the father on appeal after the district court found that it was in the child’s best interest to modify the custody agreement and award him primary physical custody of the child. The appeals court held that a parent who hinders the physical and electronic parenting time can create a substantial change in circumstances, therefore warranting a child custody modification. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to modify the custody agreement for the best interest of the child giving primary custody to our client. Our client continues to have primary physical custody of his child. 

Landan v. Landan, 77858-COA

In this case, the district court denied opposing party’s request to set aside the judgment for attorney’s fees because the ability to renew was not filed in a timely manner. We appealed stating that the renewal was proper because the parties made a modification to the payment agreement therefore creating a new last transaction date. Under NRS 11.190(1)(a) the statute of limitation to renew the judgement for fees based on the divorce decree relies on the date of the last transaction, which the district court held occurred with the modification. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the modification was the “last transaction” date, stating that the new statute of limitations began after 2016 so the affidavit to renew the judgment of fees was proper. Our client continued to receive payment for the attorney’s fees. 

Bynan v. Bynan, 81775-COA

In this case, the district court awarded attorney’s fees to be paid to opposing party without holding a hearing to which we appealed. The appeals court found that there was not a clear reasoning for the determination of attorney’s fees to be paid to opposing party. The case was reversed and remanded back to the district court to make a reasonable determination.

Rogers v. Rogers, 76173-COA and 76758-COA

In this case, our client challenged the district court’s calculation of each party’s gross monthly income and the court’s award of attorney fees to the opposing party. The appeals court found that the district court incorrectly calculated the gross monthly income for both parties. This miscalculation which concluded that alimony should be included in gross monthly income, requires more input from the district court on a new child support order. As a result, attorneys fees were also remanded back down to the district court. 

Ilieva-Klimas v. Estupinian, 75279-COA

In this case, our client appealed the district court order denying her ability to modify child custody. Our client requested a modification to the custody agreement granting her joint physical custody and make-up visitation. The District Court, without holding a hearing, denied our motion and granted primary custody to the other parent. On appeal, the appeals court found that our client’s due process rights were violated when the district court awarded permanent physical custody to the other parent without providing notice, holding a hearing, or making specific findings as to the best interest of the child. This case was remanded back to the district court to hold the required hearing to establish a permanent custody agreement in the best interest of the child. 

Telles v. Cornelius, 74695-COA (2019)

In this case, the Estate of our client successfully appealed the district court’s evaluation of the marital business and arbitrary distribution of marital assets. Here, our client’s Estate claims, and the appeals court agreed, that the district court improperly valued their marital business. The district court did not provide any evidence to the reasoning behind its evaluation, and instead relied on guesswork to make the valuation. Based on this evaluation of the lower court’s reasoning, the appeals court also found that they could not discern any compelling reasons for the distribution of marital assets. Thus, this matter was reversed and remanded down to the lower courts to complete a complete valuation of the marital business and an equitable distribution of assets. 

Telles v. Cornelius, 80355-COA (2021)

Following the Nevada Court of Appeals decision in 2019, the case was remanded to the District Court to complete a valuation of the marital business and make an equitable distribution of assets. However, this case re-appeared on appeals because the valuation of the marital business was still based on unsubstantial evidence. Our client appealed again because the District Court issued findings after remand based on the existing record at the time of trial. On appeal, it was reaffirmed that the evidence used at trial was unsubstantial because the District Court cannot use unsupported testimony to assign arbitrary value to a community business.  Again, the Nevada Court of Appeals remanded this matter to the district court with instructions that it shall conduct further proceedings to ascertain the value of the business and issue new findings consistent with this order. 

Adrianzen v. Petit , 78966-COA

In this case, our client successfully appealed the district court’s decision to deny his motion to modify primary physical custody to joint physical custody without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Here, the parties were married in 2013 and filed for divorce that same year with both asking for primary and physical custody respectively. In 2014 the Judge ordered the opposing party primary custody without containing the best interest findings as required by NRS 125.480. In 2018 the opposing party moved to modify the timeshare schedule, reducing our client’s time with his child. Our client opposed this motion and filed a countermotion to modify mom’s primary custody to joint physical custody with evidence of his child’s declining health and the safety concerns with mom’s new fiancé. The District Court held a non-evidentiary hearing on the motions and concluded that there was not adequate cause to re-litigate custody and therefore denied an evidentiary hearing. The Appeals Court concluded that our client did present sufficient factual allegations that would warrant an evidentiary hearing regarding modification of physical custody. Thus, the Court of Appeals ordered that the District Court order be reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on modification of physical custody. 

Salazar v. Landa, 83111-COA

In this case, our client appealed a variety of issues including the child support calculation and property division. In 1999, our client purchased a home, and the parties were subsequently married in 2001. Over the course of their 18-year marriage the couple had three children. In 2019 our client filed for divorce requesting primary physical custody and child support. At trial, the District Court ordered primary physical custody for our client with the opposing party’s child support obligation totaling $144.00 due to the low-income earner adjustment. Additionally, our client was ordered to pay alimony monthly for ten years in alimony with the opposing party having the 1999 property awarded as her sole and separate property. Our client appealed arguing that alimony should be included in gross monthly income, and the Appeals court agreed remanding this part of the appeal to include alimony in gross monthly income. Additionally, we appealed that the District Court’s discretion in awarding the 1999 to opposing as her sole and separate property without considering our client’s separate property interest. The Appeals Court agreed and concluded that the District Court should have calculated both parties’ separate interest and the community interest in the 1999 property and awarded the parties their equitable share. 

Sobcyzk v. Osborne, 83565-COA

In this case, our client appealed a child custody modification order. The parties had one minor child born in early 2015.  In 2017, the parties entered a stipulated custody agreement in New York. Our client was awarded sole custody of the minor child and was permitted to relocate from New York to Nevada with the child. The adverse party was awarded parenting time on a gradually increasing schedule. In Nevada, the parties had litigation regarding the adverse party’s visitation time. In 2021, the Court held a trial regarding the adverse party’s visitation with the minor child. The district court ordered the adverse party to have a gradual increase in visitation time, when appropriate and that the parties would utilize a reunification specialist to determine the adverse party’s parenting time.  We appealed the Court’s order granting the adverse party in increase in visitation time based on what a reunification specialist states. The Appeals Court agreed and concluded the District Court did not limit its delegation to a reunification specialist, it improperly delegated its decision-making authority.

Garcia v. Shapiro,  83992-COA

In this case, our client appealed the district court’s failure to decide their request for child support arrears. The parties were never married and had one minor child together. Prior to the initiation of a complaint of custody, our client had de facto primary custody and was entitled to child support arrears from the adverse party. However, the district court failed to rule on our client’s child support arrears issue. We appealed. The Appeals Court agreed and concluded the District Court improperly refused to decide our client’s request for the child support arrears. 

Egosi v. Egosi,  83454-COA

In this case, the adverse party filed an appeal challenging the district court’s custody order and contempt rulings. Our client opposed this appeal. The appellant argued the district court deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present his case at the custody modification hearing. The Supreme Court ruled the appellant has not shown the district court abused its discretion. Appellant next argued that the district court should not have found a change in circumstances affecting the parties’ child welfare. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion. Then, the Appellant argued that the district court misconstrued Georgia law in concluding that the prenuptial agreement was valid in party. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion. Then, the Appellant contended that the district court violated his right to due process by entering a written order regarding the prenuptial agreement that deviations from the court’s oral orders in the evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant has not shown that the district court erred. Next, the Appellant argued the district court improperly shifted the burden to him to demonstrate a property was a separate property. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant has not shown that the district court erred. Finally, the Appellant contended that the district judge should have recused himself because the appellant’s expert’s family personally. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant has not shown that the district court erred.

Adamska, Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 67328, & U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 16-797

In this case, our client unilaterally removed her two children to Poland without the father’s knowledge. The father filed for divorce and custody in Nevada. After two years of litigation, the Nevada District Court ultimately dismissed the custody case, deferring jurisdiction to Poland and issued a status divorce. On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the District Court. The father then appealed to the United States Supreme Court where they declined to review the case. Our client remains living in Poland with her children with custody decisions able to be made by the Polish court.

Merchan, 9th Circuit Case No. 14-16045

In this case, I represented a Father, a Colombian national, whose child was detained by the mother in the U.S. contrary to a valid Colombian Custody order. Even though the child expressed a desire to remain in the United States with her mother, my client prevailed in U.S. District Court as the child’s wishes alone were insufficient to overcome the father’s valid foreign custody order. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Federal District Court’s decision after oral argument and briefing. Even though we had won in trial court and on appeal, the mother was defying the court order and hiding the child. My office assisted law enforcement in retrieving the child from school, obtaining overnight secure housing for her and delivering her to her father at the airport. My client currently has his daughter back home with him in Colombia.