Opinion
No. 76425-COA
10-30-2019
ADRIAN EMMANUEL GIBBONS-BROWN, Appellant, v. SHONTOVIA REGINA HALL, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Adrian -Brown appeals from a post-custody decree district court order in a family matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Charles J. Hoskin, Judge.
In the proceedings below, it appears that a custody decree was entered in 2015 and a subsequent custody order was entered in October 2017. In April 2018, the district court heard argument on competing motions from both parties, apparently seeking to modify the custody order. The district court denied Adrian's motion and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Adrian's fast track statement provides some factual background and asserts that he should be awarded primary physical custody as respondent Shontovia Regina Hall should not be entitled to a joint physical custody arrangement due to her withholding the child and failure to comply with the previous custody orders entered in this case. However, Adrian has failed to supply this court with any cogent argument explaining how the district court abused its discretion in denying his apparent motion to modify custody. Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (explaining that this court need not consider claims that are not cogently argued or supported by relevant authority); Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007) (providing that this court reviews child custody matters for an abuse of discretion).
Additionally, Adrian's appendix contains only the transcript from the motion hearing and the order at issue on appeal. Thus, we cannot discern from the record what custody order is currently in place, the reasons that order was entered, or what was argued in the motion practice below. Appellant is responsible for making an adequate appellate record, and when "appellant fails to include necessary documentation in the record, we necessarily presume that the missing portion supports the district court's decision." Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007). Similarly, to the extent Adrian contends child support should have been modified and that child support arrearages were miscalculated, because the record contains no information relating to what child support obligation was ordered or whether arrearages were even entered, we must presume the missing documents support the district court's conclusion that there was no basis to modify child support. Id. Based on the foregoing, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying Adrian's motion. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division
The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C.
Shontovia Regina Hall
Eighth District Court Clerk