Boyer v. Newman (Child Custody)

obligation be eliminated, and that the court reaffirm that the Newmans are not parties to the case and have no standing. On December 23, 2013, the district court entered an order denying appellant's motion for reconsideration and noting that respondent had been released from incarceration. The court determined that appellant's request for primary custody while respondent was incarcerated had been rendered moot. The court also determined that appellant's request for joint legal custody had also been rendered moot because the December 12 order had granted the parties joint legal and physical custody. Finally, the district court determined that it was appropriate for appellant to pay child support. This appeal followed. On appeal, appellant contends that the district court infringed upon his parental rights by allowing the Newmans to exercise respondent's custodial rights during her incarceration without a finding that appellant was unfit. Appellant also contends that contrary to the district court's findings in its December 23 order, respondent was not released from incarceration until January 2014. Thus, appellant requests an order awarding him full custody, eliminating his child support obligation, and barring the Newmans from any further attempts to obtain custodial rights. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly determined that appellant's challenge to the custodial arrangement involving the Newmans was rendered moot once respondent was released from incarceration. The court may not "give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or . . . declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 404. 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (quoting NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., Reno, 97 Nev. 56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981)), A case that initially presents a live controversy may be rendered moot by subsequent events. Personhaocl Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. „ 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). Under the December 12, 2013, order, appellant and respondent share joint legal and physical custody of the minor child upon respondent's release from incarceration. To the extent that appellant seeks clarification of, or a modification to the district court's order, such a request is more appropriately directed to the district court in the first instance.' Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to pay $100 per month in child support, which constitutes the statutory minimum amount of support. See NRS 12513.080(4); Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that matters of child support are within the district court's sound discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. Parraguirre Douglas Cherry 'Appellant's additional arguments concerning venue and disqualification of the district judge should also be directed to the district court. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A (e/9 cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Dallas Tayler Boyer Lindsie Newman Carson City Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 ( o) t9 4 A ae.