Boyer v. Newman (Child Custody)

 obligation be eliminated, and that the court reaffirm that the Newmans
are not parties to the case and have no standing.
On December 23, 2013, the district court entered an order
denying appellant's motion for reconsideration and noting that respondent
had been released from incarceration. The court determined that
appellant's request for primary custody while respondent was incarcerated
had been rendered moot. The court also determined that appellant's
request for joint legal custody had also been rendered moot because the
December 12 order had granted the parties joint legal and physical
custody. Finally, the district court determined that it was appropriate for
appellant to pay child support. This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant contends that the district court infringed
upon his parental rights by allowing the Newmans to exercise
respondent's custodial rights during her incarceration without a finding
that appellant was unfit. Appellant also contends that contrary to the
district court's findings in its December 23 order, respondent was not
released from incarceration until January 2014. Thus, appellant requests
an order awarding him full custody, eliminating his child support
obligation, and barring the Newmans from any further attempts to obtain
custodial rights.
Having reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that the
district court properly determined that appellant's challenge to the
custodial arrangement involving the Newmans was rendered moot once
respondent was released from incarceration. The court may not "give
opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or . . . declare
principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." Univ.
& Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 404.
100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (quoting NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev.
56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981)), A case that initially presents a live
controversy may be rendered moot by subsequent events. Personhaocl
Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. „ 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). Under the
December 12, 2013, order, appellant and respondent share joint legal and
physical custody of the minor child upon respondent's release from
incarceration. To the extent that appellant seeks clarification of, or a
modification to the district court's order, such a request is more
appropriately directed to the district court in the first instance.'
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in ordering appellant to pay $100 per month in child support,
which constitutes the statutory minimum amount of support. See NRS
12513.080(4); Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543
(1996) (providing that matters of child support are within the district
court's sound discretion). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
Douglas Cherry
'Appellant's additional arguments concerning venue and
disqualification of the district judge should also be directed to the district
court.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A (e/9
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Dallas Tayler Boyer
Lindsie Newman
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
( o) t9 4 A ae.