The district court did not modify custody to punish Jasper for violating the court's temporary orders Next, Jasper contends that the district court ran afoul of Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 865 P.2d 328 (1993), when it modified custody "to punish" Jasper for violating the same three orders. In Sims, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that "a court may not use changes of custody as a sword to punish parental misconduct" and reversed a custody award that was made "not because it was in the best interests of the child, but because the mother admittedly did not obey a questionable, if not absurd court order."
The district court did not change custody to punish Carol for her failure to comply with court orders Carol argues the district court modified custody to punish her for not completing her court-ordered therapy, which, as she claims, is prohibited under Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 865 P.2d 328 (1993), and Lewis v. Lewis , 132 Nev. 453, 373 P.3d 878 (2016). "This court reviews the district court's decisions regarding custody ... for an abuse of discretion."
It is well established that when deciding child custody, the sole consideration of the court is the child's best interest. NRS 125.480; Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 1148, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993). Child support awards are guided by certain formulas as applied to the parties' income.
Primm v. Lopes, 109 Nev. 502, 504, 853 P.2d 103, 104 (1993).Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 1148, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993).Primm, 109 Nev. at 506, 853 P.2d at 105.
However, this court must also be satisfied that the district court's determination was made for appropriate reasons. See Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 1148, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993). Moreover, this court will not set aside the district court's factual determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence.
While these circumstances obligated the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the form of that hearing remains within the district court's discretion. See Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 1148, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993) ("The trial court enjoys broad discretionary powers in determining questions of child custody."). Thus, the district court has discretion to decide whether it is appropriate to interview R.A. under these circumstances.
This statement does not affect our holding in Sims v. Sims"that a court may not use changes of custody as a sword to punish parental misconduct." 109 Nev. 1146, 1149, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993). But Sims does not prevent a court from considering how a parent's conduct reflects on their judgment.
See NRS 125A.045 (defining a “child custody determination” as an order or decree that “provides for the legal custody, physical custody or visitation with respect to a child”); Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). Although this court reviews a district court's discretionary determinations deferentially, deference is not owed to legal error, AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589, 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) ; see Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 1148–49, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993), or to findings so conclusory they may mask legal error, Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 429, 216 P.3d 213, 226 (2009) ; cf. Culbertson v. Culbertson, 91 Nev. 230, 233–34, 533 P.2d 768, 770 (1975) (presuming that the district court properly exercised its discretion in determining the best interest of the child where the court made substantial factual findings). The decree in this case does not explicitly address the best interest of the child, E.D., nor does it include findings to support its implicit conclusion that E.D.'s best interest is served by forbidding visitation in Africa or travel outside the United States or its territories, absent a written agreement otherwise or court approval, until he becomes an adult.
To determine what custody arrangement is in the child's best interest, the court must consider various statutory factors, NRS 125.480(4), but ultimately, the child custody arrangement rests in the district court's sound discretion. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996); Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 1148, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993). The district court's factual determinations must be supported by substantial evidence.
However, we must be satisfied that the court's determination was made for appropriate reasons. Sims v. Sims, 109 Nev. 1146, 1148, 865 P.2d 328, 330 (1993). We have construed NRS 125A.350 in several recent cases in which one parent had primary physical custody: Davis v. Davis, 114 Nev. 1461, 970 P.2d 1084 (Adv. Op. No. 154, December 31, 1998); Gandee v. Gandee, 111 Nev. 754, 895 P.2d 1285 (1995); Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 890 P.2d 1309 (1995); Jones v. Jones, 110 Nev. 1253, 885 P.2d 563 (1994); and Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 812 P.2d 1268 (1991).