Sims v. Sims

58 Citing cases

  1. Anaya-Alvarado v. Anaya-Alvarado

    No. 84869-COA (Nev. App. Feb. 15, 2023)

    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."

  2. Strom v. Keller

    502 P.3d 734 (Nev. App. 2022)

    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."

  3. Blanco v. Blanco

    129 Nev. Adv. Op. 77 (Nev. 2013)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that "[t]he equal disposition of community property may not be dispensed with through default"; further elaborating that "community property and debt must be divided in accordance with law" and the district court must "make findings on the division of property in accordance with [NRS 125.150]"

    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.

  4. Rico v. Rodriguez

    121 Nev. 695 (Nev. 2005)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that "[i]n a custody dispute between two fit parents, the fundamental constitutional right to the care and custody of the children is equal"; therefore, "the dispute in such cases can be resolved best, if not solely, by applying the best interests of the child standard"

    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.

  5. Gepford v. Gepford

    116 Nev. 1033 (Nev. 2000)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the district court's factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence

    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.

  6. Arcella v. Arcella

    407 P.3d 341 (Nev. 2017)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that a district court must hold an evidentiary hearing "on a request to modify custodial orders" if the party requesting the hearing demonstrates "adequate cause"

    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.

  7. Abid v. Abid

    406 P.3d 476 (Nev. 2017)   Cited 25 times
    Concluding error was harmless and reversal was not warranted where the error did not affect the district court's custody decision

    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.

  8. Davis v. Ewalefo

    131 Nev. Adv. Op. 45 (Nev. 2015)   Cited 233 times
    Holding that the district court must issue specific findings when making a best-interest determination

    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.

  9. Ginsbach v. Ginsbach

    No. 59568 (Nev. May. 16, 2013)

    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.

  10. Hayes v. Gallacher

    115 Nev. 1 (Nev. 1999)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing that in the context of relocation cases, moving does not constitute changed circumstances that warrant a change in custody unless the move would significantly impair the noncustodial parent's ability to maintain a relationship with the child

    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).