child The court failed to address appellant's request that respondent
solely cover the child's out-of-pocket healthcare expenses incurred up to
$18,000.
On appeal, appellant first contends that the district court
abused its discretion in denying her request to modify the custody
designation under the court's prior order. But appellant did not perfect an
appeal from the prior order and did not establish a change in
circumstances warranting a modification. Thus, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request.
Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996)
(providing that this court reviews a child custody decision for an abuse of
discretion).
Appellant next argues that the district court abused its
discretion in ordering her to pay $400 monthly in child support. Although
appellant asserts that her child support obligation should be less than
$400 per month, the record demonstrates that the district court considered
the disparity in the parties' incomes and the costs associated with the
secondary health insurance policy, and thus, the court did not abuse its
discretion in calculating appellant's child support obligation. See Wallace,
112 Nev. at 1019, 922 P.2d at 543 (explaining that this court reviews a
child support order for an abuse of discretion).
Lastly, appellant argues that the district court abused its
discretion in failing to address her request that respondent be responsible
for the child's out-of-pocket healthcare expenses up to $18,000. She
asserts that these costs equal more than five percent of her gross monthly
income, and if respondent paid for all the costs, they would equal only two
percent of his gross monthly income. See NRS 125B.085(2)(a) (providing
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
that reasonable healthcare costs are five percent of the parent's monthly
income). While the district court adjusted appellant's child support
obligation to offset respondent's share of the cost of the secondary
insurance policy, it appears that the district court failed to consider
appellant's request that respondent be ordered to pay for all of the out-of-
pocket expenses. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in
failing to address appellant's request, see Wallace, 112 Nev. at 1019, 922
P.2d at 543, and we remand this matter to the district court so that the
court can make specific findings in regard to appellant's request that
respondent be responsible for the child's out-of-pocket healthcare expenses
up to $18,000. We affirm the district court's order as to the other claims
raised in this appeal.
It is so ORDERED.'
J.
Hardest
Douglas
J.
"We further deny appellant's request that this matter be remanded
to a different district court judge.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A (e,
cc: Hon. Linda M. Gardner, District Judge
Karen G. Oki
Leslie J. Shaw
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I947A ce:o