Singh v. Singh (Child Custody)

 Appellant also argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied his request to modify the parties' child custody
arrangement, which provided appellant with supervised visitation,
without holding a hearing on the matter. In response, respondent
contends that appellant's motion was not supported by a recommendation
from the parenting coordinator and did not identify changed
circumstances relating to the supervision requirement.' Initially, we note
that the district court order appointing the parenting coordinator does not
grant the parenting coordinator authority over "substantive change[s] to
the parenting plan," including changes to the supervision requirement.
Thus, it was appropriate for appellant to seek to lift the supervision
requirement in the district court in the first instance.
As to the merits of appellant's motion, when a party seeks to
modify a judicially approved visitation and custody arrangement, the
party must show that there has been a substantial change in
circumstances affecting the welfare of the child and that the child's best
interest is served by the modification. See Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145,
150, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007); cf. Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. ,
257 P.3d 396, 401-02 (2011) (requiring a substantial change in
circumstances and best-interest-of-the-child analysis regarding the
'In her response to appellant's appeal statement, respondent
requested guidance from this court regarding confidential reports
evaluating appellant. To the extent respondent was requesting leave to
supplement the record, we deny the request because the reports are not
necessary to our evaluation, as it does not appear that the• district court
was presented with or considered them in its most recent order denying
appellant's request to modify visitation.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
termination of a grandmother's visitation rights); see also NRS 125.480(4)
(setting forth factors for determining the best interest of the child). A
district court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a request to modify
custody if the moving party demonstrates a prima facie case for the
modification. Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540, 542-43, 853 P.2d 123, 124-
25 (1993).
In his motion, appellant contended that unsupervised
visitation was in the child's best interest and that there had been a
significant change in circumstances relating to child custody. Appellant
stated that he had consistently exercised his supervised visitation rights
in the eight-month period since the divorce decree and that the visits were
free of negative incidents and had gone well. He further stated that
reports of his visitation from "Donna's House," the third-party supervisor,
were favorable. Appellant also argued that the positive supervised
visitations, his stable home life, and his engagement to be married
demonstrated that there was no longer cause for supervised visitation, and
thus, there had been a substantial change in circumstances justifying a
modification of the supervision requirement. Additionally, appellant
argued that more liberal visitation was in the child's best interest because
the child was older, he and the child had developed a relationship, and the
child enjoyed appellant's visits. We conclude that appellant established a
prima facie case for modifying his supervised visitation, see Rooney, 109
Nev. at 542-43, 853 P.2d at 124-25, and that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied appellant's motion for unsupervised visitation
without holding a hearing on the matter. See Rennels, 127 Nev. at
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
257 P.3d 401-02; see also Wallace, 112 Nev. at 1019, 922 P.2d at 543.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with this order. 2
- 120106 -
, J.
Parraguirre
Douglas
J.
cc: Hon. Mathew Harter, District Judge, Family Court Division
Harjitt Singh
Abrams Law Firm, LLC
Eighth District Court Clerk
2We have considered appellant's argument regarding the district
court's refusal to hold respondent in contempt and conclude that it lacks
merit, however, we note that appellant may seek a district court order
enforcing the divorce decree upon remand.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A cep