Terrillion v. Baarz (Child Custody) ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                In denying appellant's motion, the district court concluded
    that appellant failed to set forth a prima facie case that there had been a
    substantial change in circumstances and that modifying the custody
    arrangement would serve the child's best interest.     See Ellis v. Carucci,
    
    123 Nev. 145
    , 150-51, 
    161 P.3d 239
    , 242-43 (2007) (setting forth the
    standard for modifying primary physical custody); Rooney v. Rooney, 
    109 Nev. 540
    , 542-43, 
    853 P.2d 123
    , 124-25 (1993) (explaining what is required
    to make a prima facie case for custody modification, and that absent such
    a showing, an evidentiary hearing is not required). The district court
    determined that appellant's assertions regarding the child's preference
    and academic performance had been previously considered in conjunction
    with prior• motions and that custody had not been modified.               See
    McMonigle v. McMonigle, 
    110 Nev. 1407
    , 1408, 
    887 P.2d 742
    , 743 (1994)
    (providing that the moving party must demonstrate a substantial change
    of circumstances since the most recent custodial order). The district court
    acknowledged that a child's preference is one factor to be considered, but
    gave the child's preference marginal weight under the circumstances and
    history of this case.      See NRS 125.480(4)(a) (providing that when
    determining the child's best interest the court shall consider the child's
    wishes "if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent
    preference as to his or her custody").
    A child's preference is one of many factors for the court to
    consider in determining the child's best interest, see NRS 125.480(4), and
    matters of custody rest within the district court's sound discretion.     See
    Wallace v. Wallace, 
    112 Nev. 1015
    , 1019, 
    922 P.2d 541
    , 543 (1996).
    Having considered the record on appeal and the parties' arguments, we
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    ve.
    conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    appellant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    Gibbons
    cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge
    Troy Thomas Terrillion
    Emily Jane Baarz
    Elko County Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF                                             3
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A    ex.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 66424

Filed Date: 4/17/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021