Once again, the Nevada Supreme Court has reversed the family court judge on the sole basis that the judge failed to tell the High Court why he granted custody to one parent over the other. In the unpublished decision, Lopez v. Lopez, the family court judge was asked to decide whether the children would remain in Nevada with the father or be permitted to relocate to Arizona where the mother was already living. After a trial, the judge awarded primary custody of the children to the mother in Arizona.
Unfortunately for the mother, the judge failed in both his written order and his comments on the record to make specific findings and provide an adequate explanation of the reason for his determination. According to the Nevada Supreme Court, such findings and explanation are crucial for appellate review as well as enforcement and future modification of custody order. Specifically, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the judge’s order contained no findings of fact regarding custody or whether relocating to Arizona would serve the children’s best interest. The judge’s order even failed to reference governing law.
Because the deficiencies in the judge’s written order and oral pronouncements prevented the Supreme Court from evaluating whether the custody determination was made for appropriate legal reasons, the court reversed the district court order awarding the mother primary physical custody of the children in Arizona and remanded the matter for additional evidence and proper findings and conclusions of law regarding physical custody and relocation.
This is not the first time that the Nevada Supreme Court has reversed a family court judge for failing to make proper findings of fact. If you find yourself having prevailed in a custody battle, make sure that when the final written order is submitted to the court for signature that it contains all appropriate findings of fact because, if it doesn’t, your victory will be a hollow one indeed.