Parslow v. Smith (Child Custody)

 Having considered appellant's brief, appellant's pro se appeal
statement, the record on appeal, and appellant's appendix, we conclude
that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the maternal
grandmother custody of the two children. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112
Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that this court
reviews a child custody decision for an abuse of discretion). First, the
district court could not award custody to her because she never moved to
intervene in the action, and thus, she was not a party to the action. See
Young v. Nev. Title Co., 103 Nev. 436, 442, 744 P.2d 902, 905 (1987)
(providing that "[a] court does not have jurisdiction to enter judgment for
or against one who is not a party to the action"); Landry v. Nauls, 831
S.W.2d 603, 605-06 (Tex. App. 1992) (explaining that a court cannot award
custody to a nonparent unless that nonparent has brought an action for
custody or has sought to intervene in the custody action). Second, the
district court violated appellant's procedural due process rights by
awarding custody to the maternal grandmother when appellant had no
notice that the grandmother was going to testify at the hearing or was
going to be considered as a custodial placement option, and when
appellant did not have an opportunity to present evidence concerning
whether placement with the grandmother was in the children's best
interest. See Gonzales-Alpizar v. Griffith, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 2, 317 P.3d
820, 827 (2014) (providing that due process requires reasonable notice and
an opportunity to present objections).
Lastly, the district court did not make specific findings that
awarding custody to either parent would be detrimental to the children
and the award of custody to the maternal grandmother was in the
children's best interest. See NRS 125.500(1) (requiring that before a court
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ea
awards custody to a nonparent, the court must find that "an award of
custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and the award to a
nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child"). Accordingly,
we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order. 2
Saitta
Gibbons
Pickering
cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court
Hon. Gerald W. Hardcastle, Senior Judge
Pecos Law Group
Lisa Rochelle Smith
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 Tothe extent appellant's additional arguments are not addressed
by this order, we conclude they lack merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e