Godifay v. Asgedom (Child Custody) ( 2015 )

 respondent should be the parent with primary physical custody. There
was no evidence offered that appellant's work schedule would affect the
children's well-being or that appellant did not make adequate
arrangements for child care in his absence. See In re Marriage of Loyd,
131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80, 84-85 (Ct. App. 2003) ("a parent may not be deprived
of custody based upon his or her work schedule if adequate arrangements
are made for the child's care in the parent's absence"); Silva v. Silva, 136
P.3d 371, 377 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006) (explaining that a parent's work
schedule is only relevant if it is shown that the parent's work schedule
affects the well-being of the children); Gerber v. Gerber, 487 A.2d 413, 416
(Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); Brennan u. Brennan, 685 A.2d 1104, 1106 (Vt.
1996). Additionally, it does not appear that the district court equally
considered respondent's work schedule in determining custody.
Further, the district court's finding that appellant generally
worked from 4 p.m. to 4 a.m., 5 days a week was not supported by
substantial evidence because he testified that his work schedule could be
as little as five hours a day for 3 days a week. See Ellis v. Carucci, 123
Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007) (providing that substantial
evidence is evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to
sustain a judgment). It also appears that the district court failed to
consider which parent was more likely to foster a relationship between the
three children and their adult half-sibling. NRS 125.480(4)(0 (2009).
Because the district court's custody award relied on appellant's work
schedule when there was no evidence that his work schedule impacted the
well-being of the children or that he could not arrange adequate child care
while he worked, and because the court failed to consider the children's
relationship with their adult half-sibling, we conclude the court abused its
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A A76710)4
discretion by awarding primary physical custody to respondent. Wallace,
112 Nev. at 1019, 922 P.2d at 543. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.'
Parraguirre
J.
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Department J
Bailey Kennedy
Kunin & Carman
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
awarding respondent primary physical custody, we need not address the
other issues raised on appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
KJ) 1947A att.