Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The Washoe County Department of Social Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights as to his three minor children. Father filed a demand for a jury trial. The district court denied Father’s demand, concluding that the right to a jury trial in a parental termination proceeding is not guaranteed by the Nevada Constitution, common law, or statute. After a bench trial, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights to his three minor children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Father’s demand for a jury trial in the termination of parental rights proceeding, as neither the Nevada Constitution nor the United States Constitution guarantees a jury trial in a termination of parental rights proceeding; and (2) substantial evidence supported the district court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights to the three minor children. View "Jesus F. v. Washoe County Dep’t of Soc. Servs." on Justia Law

Kerstan and Michael Micone divorced in 2009. The parties were awarded joint legal custody of their two minor children, and Kersten received primary physical custody of both children. In 2013, the parties’ daughter, I.M., moved to her grandparents’ house in Reno, where she currently resides. In 2014, Michael sought primary physical custody of I.M. The district court awarded primary physical custody of I.M. to her grandparents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the grandparents custody of I.M. because the grandparents were neither parties to nor intervenors in the custody suit, the court failed to notify the Micones that it was considering the grandparents as a custodial option, and the court did not make the requisite findings to overcome the parental preference. View "Micone v. Micone" on Justia Law

The State filed an amended abuse and neglect petition alleging that Mother’s two minor children needed the State’s protection. Mother’s case plan included a provision that she must randomly submit to drug testing. The district court ordered, instead, that an agent of the Department of Children and Family Services could require Mother to take a drug test if the agent reasonably believed that Mother was under the influence of a controlled substance. Mother filed a motion to amend her case plan, arguing that the drug-testing requirement infringed on her constitutional rights. The district court denied Mother’s motion. Mother subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the portion of the district court’s order establishing the drug-testing requirement in her case plan. The Supreme court granted the petition, holding that because the district court did not make any findings to support the drug-testing requirement in the case plan, there were no explicit factual findings to show why this action step in Mother’s case plan was justified, and a writ of mandamus was warranted. View "Manuela H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

During Vivian Harrison’s divorce proceeding to Kirk Harrison, Kirk hired psychiatrist Norton Roitman to conduct a psychiatric analysis of Vivian. Without meeting with or examining Vivian, Dr. Roitman submitted to the court a written report diagnosing Vivian with a personality disorder. Vivian subsequently filed a complaint against Dr. Roitman, alleging that his statements constituted, inter alia, medical malpractice and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted Roitman’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Dr. Roitman was absolutely immune from liability for each of Vivian’s causes of action because he was a witness preparing an expert report in connection with the matter in controversy at the time he made the statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, even if the allegations contained in Vivian’s complaint were true, Dr. Roitman's defense of absolute immunity precluded her claim. View "Harrison v. Roitman" on Justia Law