Friedman v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 127 Nev. 842

Summary

The Supreme Court of Nevada held that Nevada lacked authority under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act to proceed with a custody modification after finding that both parents and the children no longer resided in Nevada and that California was the children's home state. The parties' agreement selecting Nevada as the forum could be considered by a court with UCCJEA jurisdiction but could not confer subject matter jurisdiction on Nevada. The court granted writs of prohibition and mandamus, directing the Nevada district court to stay or dismiss the proceeding unless California declined jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. Nevada's exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the prior custody determination ceased when the district court determined that the children, both parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer presently resided in Nevada.
2. For a post-divorce custody modification, the relevant proceeding for determining the date of commencement under the UCCJEA is the post-divorce custody or visitation motion, not the original divorce proceeding.
3. Because California was the children's home state and had a custody proceeding commenced in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA, Nevada was required to stay its proceeding, communicate with the California court, and dismiss unless California determined that Nevada was the more appropriate forum.
4. A parental agreement selecting Nevada as the forum, and judicial or equitable estoppel based on that agreement, cannot confer or preserve UCCJEA subject matter jurisdiction that Nevada otherwise lacks.
5. Writs of prohibition and mandamus were appropriate to restrain the Nevada district court's unauthorized exercise of UCCJEA jurisdiction and to require compliance with NRS 125A.355(2).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nevada retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA after the court found that the children, both parents, and all persons acting as parents no longer resided in Nevada.
2. Whether a post-divorce custody motion constitutes a new proceeding requiring a fresh UCCJEA jurisdictional analysis based on the facts existing when the motion was filed.
3. Whether the parties' agreement selecting Nevada as the forum could confer or preserve UCCJEA subject matter jurisdiction after Nevada's exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceased.
4. Whether Nevada could conduct an inconvenient- or more-appropriate-forum analysis or require California to defer when California was the children's apparent home state.
5. Whether judicial or equitable estoppel could confer UCCJEA subject matter jurisdiction on Nevada.
6. Whether extraordinary writ relief was appropriate to restrain the Nevada district court's unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction.

Disposition

writ_granted