district court incorrectly calculated respondent's monthly income and
erred by relying on respondent's previous schedule of arrearages. Having
considered the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude
that substantial evidence supports the district court's determinations on
each of these issues. See Edgington v. Edgington, 119 Nev. 577, 588, 80
P.3d 1282, 1290 (2003) (explaining that this court reviews a district court's
child support award for an abuse of discretion); see also Williams v.
Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004) (providing that if a
district court's factual determinations are supported by substantial
evidence on appeal, this court will not disturb them). We therefore affirm
that portion of the district court's order adjudicating the child support
arrearages.
In regard to the health care premiums, appellant argues that
the district court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay arrearages
and in ordering him to pay $112 per month for the health care premium of
the parties' younger child. Appellant asserts that the district court erred
in calculating the amount he owed in arrearages because the costs of the
past health care premiums should have been divided equally between the
parties during the periods when they shared custody of the children.
Appellant also contends that he had previously attempted to obtain a
different health insurance policy for the children and that respondent had
refused to sign the forms to allow the change. Thus, he argues that he
should not be liable for the health care premiums following respondent's
refusal to sign the forms. The divorce decree provided, however, that
appellant would be solely responsible for the children's health care
premiums, and that obligation has never been modified. Moreover, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to permit appellant
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
II
time to conduct discovery on this issue because respondent submitted
substantial evidence establishing the cost of the premiums. Because the
record on appeal supports the district court's conclusions as to the amount
of the premiums, both past and future, we affirm the district court's order
as to the arrearages and as to appellant's ongoing obligation in this
regard. See Edgington, 119 Nev. at 588, 80 P.3d at 1290; see also NRS
125B.020 (requiring a parent to provide a child with health care).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
Parragu
cc: Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division
Michel Lellouche
Law Offices of Robert L. Hempen II
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A