would be able to maintain a relationship with appellant if respondent
relocated with the child. The evidentiary hearing was conducted in July
2013 by District Court Judge Jack Ames, who concluded, over appellant's
objection, that the relocation motion had been granted and that the only
issue pending was the visitation schedule for appellant. Thus, Judge
Ames limited the evidence offered to evidence addressing the visitation
schedule. Thereafter, an order granting the motion to relocate, without
addressing the Schwartz factors, and setting the visitation schedule was
entered. This appeal followed.
Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it
granted the motion to relocate. See Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015,
1019-20, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that this court reviews a
child custody decision for an abuse of discretion). In considering a motion
to relocate filed by a parent with primary physical custody of the child, the
court must consider the factors provided in Schwartz, 107 Nev. at 382-83,
812 P.2d at 1271. Although Judge Teuton considered the Schwartz factors
at the May 2012 hearing and concluded that certain factors weighed in
favor of relocation, that decision was never reduced to a written order. See
Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382
(1987) (explaining that an oral ruling is not valid for any purpose).
Additionally, Judge Teuton determined that relocation could not be
granted because more information was necessary regarding the effect the
child's developmental condition would have on appellant's ability to
maintain a relationship with the child after the relocation occurred. At
the subsequent evidentiary hearing, Judge Ames erroneously concluded
that the relocation motion had been granted and that only the visitation
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A eo
schedule remained to be decided. Judge Ames never expressly considered
the issue ostensibly left open by Judge Teuton regarding appellant's
opportunity to maintain a visitation schedule that adequately fosters and
preserves the parental relationship in light of the child's developmental
condition, or any of the other Schwartz factors. Given the lack of
continuity in the judges hearing this matter and the fact that the order
granting relocation does not expressly address the Schwartz factors, we
reverse and remand this matter to the district court to conduct an
evidentiary hearing considering the relocation motion under Schwartz,
including whether appellant will be able to maintain a visitation schedule
that will adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship in light
of the child's developmental condition.
It is so ORDERED.'
C.J.
Gibbons
debt , J.
Pickering Parraguirre
'We have determined that this appeal should be submitted for
decision on the fast track statement and response and the appellate record
without oral argument. See NRAP 3E(g)(1); see also NRAP 34(0(1).
Further, in light of this order, we need not address appellant's
additional arguments.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A (4?)51D
cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division
Hon. Jack Ames, Senior Judge
Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge
Hitzke & Associates
Brewer Blau Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A 94p1a7