Richardson v. Richardson (Child Custody) ( 2015 )

 the hearing. 1 Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
setting the matter for a three-hour evidentiary hearing.
Appellant also argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it modified the parties' custody arrangement without
granting appellant's request for the court to interview the children
regarding their custodial preferences. Custody matters are within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal
absent an abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019,
922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996). When modifying custody, the district court was
required to consider evidence of the children's custodial preferences, but it
was not required to interview the children. NRS 125.480(4)(a). In the
proceedings below, the parties did not offer evidence of the children's
custodial preferences, but did present evidence of conflict between the
parents, appellant's alcohol abuse, domestic abuse in appellant's home,
and other factors relevant to the best interests of the children. See NRS
125.480(4). In light of this evidence, the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it determined that it was not necessary to interview the
'The transcript of the hearing as it appears in the record on appeal
is abridged and there is no support for appellant's assertion that he
advised the district court that the time allotted was insufficient.
Appellant has the burden of providing this court with 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).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
children and granted respondent primary physical custody of the parties'
children based on the children's best interests.
For the reasons discussed above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
J.
J.
Gibbons
Pickering
cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division
Christopher Richardson
Flangas Dalacas Law Group, Inc.
Eighth District Court Clerk
2Appellant's appeal statement also challenges the portion of the
district court's March 11, 2014, order granting respondent's countermotion
for attorney fees. Because that order did not set forth an amount of
attorney fees, any challenge to the attorney fees award is premature and
not properly before this court in the context of this appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A )40:414