Shahrokhi v. Burrow

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s custody, relocation, domestic-violence findings, judicial-disqualification, and attorney-fee orders in consolidated appeals involving Ali Shahrokhi and Kizzy Burrow. The court dismissed Docket No. 83726 in part because several challenged post-judgment orders were not appealable, and otherwise affirmed the district court’s judgments.

Holdings

1. When two fit parents dispute custody, their fundamental constitutional rights to care for and custody of the child are equal, and the child's best interests may serve as the sole consideration in resolving custody under NRS 125C.0035.
2. Procedural due process is satisfied when a party receives notice and a meaningful opportunity to present the party's case.
3. The denial of Shahrokhi's motion to disqualify Judge Harter was not an abuse of discretion because judicial rulings and official actions ordinarily do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification, and Shahrokhi failed to show extreme bias that would make fair judgment impossible.
4. A district court may make domestic-violence findings under NRS 125C.0035(5) in a custody proceeding, and those findings trigger the rebuttable presumption that awarding physical custody to the offending parent is not in the child's best interest.
5. The district court properly applied the Druckman relocation factors rather than the NRS 125C.007 factors because no prior court order had awarded either parent primary or joint physical custody; its award of Burrow sole physical custody and permission to relocate to Oregon was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
6. The district court complied with SCR 251, and the invited-error doctrine barred Shahrokhi from challenging delays that the record showed he caused or contributed to.
7. The district court was authorized to award Burrow reasonable attorney fees and other costs as the prevailing party in the custody matter and properly considered the parties' income disparity.
8. An appeal must be dismissed in part when the challenged post-judgment orders are not substantively appealable under NRAP 3A and no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from them.
9. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shahrokhi relief under NRCP 60(b) because the asserted evidence was available before trial, was not shown to have been fraudulently concealed, did not establish lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and did not otherwise justify relief.
10. A prevailing party is not entitled to appellate costs under NRS 18.060 or NRAP 39 for an original writ proceeding when the writ neither ordered a new trial nor modified the underlying judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nevada's custody statute impermissibly infringed Shahrokhi's constitutional rights by treating two fit parents' custody rights equally and applying the child's best interests as the governing consideration.
2. Whether Shahrokhi was denied procedural due process through inadequate notice or opportunity to be heard concerning motions and domestic-violence allegations.
3. Whether the denial of Shahrokhi's motion to disqualify the presiding district judge constituted an abuse of discretion.
4. Whether the district court's domestic-violence findings were criminal proceedings, exceeded the court's jurisdiction, or improperly triggered the statutory custody presumption.
5. Whether the district court applied the correct legal standards and relied on substantial evidence when awarding Burrow sole custody and permitting relocation to Oregon.
6. Whether the district court violated SCR 251 by failing to resolve the custody dispute within six months.
7. Whether the award of attorney fees and costs to Burrow was authorized and properly considered the parties' income disparity.
8. Whether certain post-judgment orders in Docket No. 83726 were appealable.
9. Whether Shahrokhi was entitled to relief from judgment under NRCP 60(b), to supplement his motion, or to recover costs related to a prior writ proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed