Henderson, II v. Henderson ( 2015 )

 RS 130.205(1)(b)'s provision allowing the parties to consent to
'urisdiction did not apply. And because Pennsylvania is the child's home
state, the Pennsylvania child support order controlled. NRS 130.207(2)
(providing that if two states have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
because at least one of the parties resides in each of the states, the order
from the state in which the child resides controls). Thus, the district court
did not err in relinquishing jurisdiction over child support to the
Pennsylvania court. Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by failing to include findings of facts and conclusions of law in its order
because the order was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
See Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004)
("Rulings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on
appeal." (internal quotations marks omitted)). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Parraguirre
, J.
we'
Dougla s ?"
J.
cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge
Warm Springs Law Group
Christopher P. Burke
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947k