Seminario v. Pierzchanowski (Child Custody) ( 2015 )

 Having considered the record on appeal and the parties' briefs
and oral arguments, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in granting respondent's motion to relocate to Germany with
the child. 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). Because the most recent custody order provided that
the parties had joint physical custody, respondent was not required to seek
appellant's consent to the relocation under NRS 125C.200 (1999)
(amended 2015) prior to filing her relocation motion. Potter v. Potter, 121
Nev. 613,617-18, 119 P.3d 1246, 1249 (2005).
Next, because appellant did not timely request a continuance
after his attorney withdrew and he failed to take advantage of the list of
attorneys willing to take his case that his previous counsel provided to
him, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request.
Hopper v. Hopper, 79 Nev. 86, 88, 378 P.2d 875, 876 (1963) (providing that
this court reviews a decision regarding a continuance for an abuse of
discretion).
As for appellant's evidentiary arguments, we conclude the
district court did not rely on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence in
granting respondent's motion because evidence of respondent's pregnancy
was relevant to• her desire to live with her new husband and evidence of
appellant's arrest and the temporary protection order obtained against
him was admissible because that evidence went to his character. NRS
50.075 (providing that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any
party). In regard to the evidence of appellant's failure to pay child
support, it does not appear that the court relied on this evidence in
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A can
making its decision, and regardless, substantial other evidence supports
the court's decision.
Finally, because respondent had a good faith basis for the
relocation, Jones v. Jones, 110 Nev. 1253, 1261, 885 P.2d 563, 569 (1994),
and the district court considered both the NRS 125.480(4) (1999) best-
interest and Schwartz factors, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that the relocation was in the child's
best interest. Additionally, appellant was awarded substantial visitation
that will adequately foster and preserve his parental relationship with the
child. Relocation matters force district courts to make difficult decisions
but the district court here thoroughly explained its decision and
considered all the relevant factors, and thus, we cannot conclude that the
court abused its discretion in granting respondent's motion to relocate.'
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
brut
Parraguirre
Douglas
1 1
301,4 , J.
Cherry
, J.
'Because the district court held an evidentiary hearing and resolved
the motion on its merits, whether respondent made a prima facie case for
relocation is no longer relevant. See generally Hopp v. City of Pittsburgh,
194 F.3d 434, 439 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining that when a case is tried on
the merits, the question of whether "the plaintiff made out a prima facie
case is no longer relevant" (internal quotations omitted)).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947T 4eIm
cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division
Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge
David L. Mann
Pecos Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947T 41407-4