At Pecos Law Group, we are always looking for a challenging appeal to the Nevada Appellate courts to correct mistakes and injustices created by unfair or legally incorrect Family Court Decisions. Following are the appeals we currently have in progress:
College Tuition and Related Expenses
Pecos Law Group prevailed at the Nevada Court of Appeals on a request to reverse a district court decision setting arbitrary limits on a parent’s obligation to pay for his child’s college expenses. The parties had a marital settlement agreement that detailed that the parent would pay the college expenses. The agreement was not merged into the parties’ decree of divorce, and thus must be interpreted as a standard contract. The Court of Appeals determined that the college expenses provision was not ambiguous and to the extent the plain meaning of the term is unclear, the district court must look to the parties’ intent at the formation of the agreement. Unhappy with the result, the father, who happens to be a lawyer, has filed a request for review by the Nevada Supreme Court. The decision on whether the Nevada Supreme Court will review is pending.
Private Religious Schools
This case involves a parent who requested that his child attend a private school with a religious orientation. The father was willing to pay for all of the costs associated with the school and provide any transportation as needed. Although the child wanted to attend the private school, the mother objected on the pretext of its religious orientation. The family court judge found that the private school would serve the best interests of the child, but denied the father’s requested because of the mother’s religious objection. Pecos Law Group recently filed an appeal on behalf of the father.
Child Support
The parents agreed to a split physical custody arrangement of their children where mom has primary physical custody of one child and the parents share joint physical custody of the other. Based on this split custody arrangement, the district court awarded mom child support. The award does not appear to be in compliance with Nevada child support statutes and district court did not provide how the award was calculated. Pecos Law Group appealed the child support award and asked the Nevada Supreme Court to determine a formula for split-custody situations. At present, there is no law on how child support should be calculated in a split-custody arrangement.
Same-Sex Couple Paternity Dispute
Two men involved in a long-term same-sex relationship decided to adopt a child. Because the men were not domestic partners or married, they decided they would adopt the child through two separate adoptions. After the first man adopted, he decided that he did not want the second man to adopt the child. Despite the lack of a second adoption, the second man raised the child as his. This continued for a considerable amount of time until the first man cut off the child’s contact with the second man. At trial, the district court determined that the second man was indeed a second father to the child. Pecos Law Group represents the second father in defending his paternity and custody rights from the first father’s appeal of the district court’s decision. The Nevada Supreme Court has determined that the entire court, rather than the customary three-judge panel, will hear the case.
Contempt
The district court sentenced a woman to jail for contempt due to an alleged failure to follow court orders related to a mandatory testing program. Pecos Law Group succeeded in obtaining a stay of the sentence from the district court and have petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court for a writ mandating a reversal of the sentence. The sentence should not have been issued because it was not supported by a proper affidavit; the order upon which contempt was determined was ambiguous; the conduct was not willful; the court failed to provide constitutional safeguards where criminal contempt was at issue; and sanctioning a parent with jail time in the context of the case is against public policy. The Nevada Supreme Court has determined that this case will be set for oral argument.