Rhein v. Rhein (Child Custody) ( 2015 )

 trial court"); Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704
(2009) (providing that a district court's factual findings will be upheld if
not clearly erroneous and if supported by substantial evidence). 2
Appellant also contends that the district court's time
management during the three-day evidentiary hearing prevented her from
adequately presenting her case. Because appellant provides only limited
excerpts from the evidentiary hearing transcript, we cannot conclude that
the district court abused its discretion in its administration of the
hearing. 3 Cuzze v. Univ. & Dray. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172
P.3d 131, 135 (2007) ("When an appellant fails to include necessary
documentation in the record, we necessarily presume that the missing
portion supports the district court's decision."); Zupancic v. Sierra Vista
Recreation Inc., 97 Nev. 187, 192-93, 625 P.2d 1177, 1180 (1981)
(providing that hearing and trial procedures are matters vested in the
sound discretion of the trial court).
Finally, appellant contends that the district court abused its
discretion when it found that respondent was the prevailing party
regarding custody and thus was entitled to a portion of his attorney fees.
A party prevails if it succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which
achieves some of the benefit it sought in bringing suit. Valley Elec. Ass'n
v. Overfield, 121 Nev. 7, 10, 106 P.3d 1198, 1200 (2005). As respondent
2Although appellant also argues that an order terminating
respondent's parental rights should have been entered following the
December 14, 2010, hearing, this issue was resolved by the district court
order filed March 14, 2011, which appellant does not address on appeal.
3Similarly, appellant's argument that the district court assumed
facts not in evidence fails for lack of a full transcript.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A attfro
was awarded joint legal custody and increased custodial time with the
children, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it determined that respondent prevailed on these issues. Rivero v.
River°, 125 Nev. 410, 440, 216 P.3d 213, 234 (2009) ("This court reviews
the district court's award of attorney fees for an abuse of discretion.").
Additionally, we note that the district court order for attorney fees was
also based on contempt and bad faith litigation tactics. 4 See NRS 22.100;
NRS 18.010(2)(b).
For the reasons discussed above, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 5
J.
, J.
Gibbons Pickering
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Dept. J
Rachell A. Rhein
Noah C. Rhein
Eighth District Court Clerk
4Appellant additionally argues that the district court drew an
improper inference from her invocation of her Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination. Appellant, however, was not held in contempt
regarding the matter in which she invoked her right against self-
incrimination, and thus, she lacks grounds to raise this issue on appeal.
5 We conclude that appellant's additional arguments lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A