Meeks v. Wright (Child Custody)

A court of this state may modify another state's custody determination if a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination because Nevada is the child's home state on the date the proceeding is commenced, Nevada was the child's home state within six months before the commencement of the proceeding, or another state does not have jurisdiction or has declined jurisdiction on the basis that Nevada is the more appropriate forum. NRS 125A.325; NRS 125A.305(1)(a), (b). A child's home state is "[t] he state in which a child lived with a parent ... for at least 6 consecutive months, including any temporary absence from the state, immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding." NRS 125A.085. In the present case, the Nevada child custody proceeding commenced in August 2012 when appellant filed the motion to domesticate and modify the Texas child custody order. The record shows that the child had been residing in California from August 2011 to May 2012, when appellant brought the child to Nevada Thus, Nevada was not the child's home state at the time that the action was filed, or within six months before the proceeding commenced. Rather, the child had only resided in Nevada for three months and California had become the child's home state within the past six months because he had resided there for ten months before his removal to Nevada. Further, Nevada was unable to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction because the child had not been abandoned or subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. NRS 125A.335(1). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying appellant's request for Nevada to assume UCCJEA jurisdiction. See Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009) SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) i9.47A (explaining that subject matter jurisdiction in an interstate child custody dispute is a question of law, reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' lebt CUP , J. Saitta cc: Hon. T. Arthur Ritchie, Jr., District Judge, Family Court Division Marvin John Meeks Fuller Law Practice, PC Eighth District Court Clerk 'We conclude that appellant's additional arguments lack merit. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 10) 1947A .fa#43