October 22, 2024, Oral Arguments
Crosier vs. Crosier (Child Custody)
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Clarke vs. White (Child Custody) c/w 86069
Las Vegas– 2:45 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Backman vs. Gelbman
Las Vegas – 3:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Crosier vs. Crosier (Child Custody)
Docket No. 87206-COA
Las Vegas – 2:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a custody decree and post-decree order. Appellant argues that (1) the district court abused its discretion by failing to make specific findings regarding the best interest of the child under NRS 125C.0035(4) and by failing to apply the statutory domestic violence presumption outlined in NRS 125C.0035(5); (2) the district court abused its discretion by not identifying a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a custody modification; (3) the district court abused its discretion by not evaluating whether it was in the child’s best interest to relocate to Colorado; and (4) substantial evidence does not support the district court’s custody determination.
Clarke vs. White (Child Custody) c/w 86069
Docket No. 86068-COA
Las Vegas– 2:45 p.m. – Court of Appeals
These are consolidated appeals from district court orders setting aside a default custody decree and awarding respondent primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child. First, appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in setting aside the default decree because it did not properly apply NRCP 60(b) and NRS 125C.0035(4). Second, appellant raises several arguments regarding the district court’s purported abuse of discretion in entering a subsequent decree that awarded respondent primary physical custody. In particular, appellant contends that the district court should not have reconsidered domestic violence allegations already known when the default decree was entered. Alternatively, appellant argues that respondent failed to establish he committed domestic violence by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, appellant claims that the district court improperly used NRS 200.359(2) to rebut NRS 125C.0035(7)’s presumption against joint or sole physical custody for a parent who commits abduction.
Backman vs. Gelbman
Docket No. 86396-COA
Las Vegas – 3:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Following a 2019 motion, the district court set respondent Daniel Gelbman’s monthly child support obligation to zero after accepting a family court master’s recommendation to impute income to appellant Hope Backman due to her purported failure to provide sufficient information to determine her income. This appeal concerns a March 2023 order denying Backman’s most recent motion to modify child support. The issues raised on appeal include: whether the district court (1) erred when it imputed income to Backman in May 2020 without making specific findings of fact and compounded this error by denying Backman’s 2021 and 2022 motions to modify child support, (2) erred when it failed to substantively review the child support order when Backman presented it with evidence of changed circumstances in her February 2023 motion to modify child support, (3) erred when it failed to make specific findings of fact explaining why it continued to deviate from the statutory formula for determining child support when reviewing Backman’s February 2023 motion to modify, and (4) violated Nevada public policy for parents to support their children when the master allegedly did not conduct a substantive review of Backman’s child support obligation at the March 2023 hearing.