Mansur v. Mansur (Child Custody) ( 2014 )

 January 3, 2013, the child's therapist submitted a report recommending
that appellant and respondent should attend family therapy. If family
therapy was unsuccessful, the therapist recommended that appellant and
respondent attend therapy individually. In light of the therapist's
recommendation, appellant filed the underlying motion requesting that
the district court order family therapy and reunification with the
assistance of a counselor. The district court construed appellant's motion
as a motion to modify custody and denied it on the basis that no change in
circumstances had occurred that warranted modification.
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying
appellant's motion. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d
541, 543 (1996) (providing that this court will not disturb a custody
decision absent a clear abuse of discretion). The district court failed to
adequately consider the January 3, 2013, report from the therapist for
taking steps towards reunification, including the recommendation that
appellant and respondent participate in family therapy. Further, the
district court did not acknowledge that under the December 7, 2011, order,
appellant was to have one hour of supervised visitation each month, and it
appears from the record that the visitation has never been suspended.
Rather, in denying appellant's motion, the district court
effectively terminated reunification between appellant and the child. We
have previously recognized that it is in the child's best interest to have a
relationship with both parents. See Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378,
382, 812 P.2d 1268, 1270 (1991) (providing that "it is in the best interests
of a child to have a healthy and close relationship with both parents"
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Additionally, the district court's
order left appellant with no means to see his child. See In re Parental
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Rights as to A.G., 129 Nev. „ 295 P.3d 589, 595 (2013) (recognizing
that parents have "a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and
control of their children"). Therefore, as the district court failed to
consider the fact that appellant was entitled to supervised visitation with
the child pursuant to the December 7, 2011, order, failed to consider the
therapist's recommendation for family therapy to facilitate reunification,
and failed to consider whether it was in the child's best interest to
continue to have a relationship with both parents, we conclude that the
district court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion and
effectively terminating reunification. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order."
J.
Hardesty
J.
Douglas Cherry
'In regard to appellant's argument that the district court should not
have considered respondent's untimely opposition to his motion, we
conclude that that argument lacks merit. See Lesley v. Lesley, 113 Nev.
727, 734, 941 P.2d 451, 455 (1997) (providing that Nevada has a basic
underlying policy in favor of deciding cases on their merits, especially in
domestic relations matters) overruled on other grounds by Epstein v.
Epstein, 113 Nev. 1401, 950 P.2d 771 (1997). To the extent that this order
does not address any additional arguments raised by appellant, we
conclude that those arguments are unnecessary to our resolution of this
appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 0
cc: Hon. Linda M. Gardner, District Judge
Margaret M. Crowley, Settlement Judge
Anderson Keuscher, PLLC
Robin E. Kazel
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A ea