Oki v. Oki

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