child custody matters, and we will not disturb the district court's custody
determinations absent a clear abuse of discretion." Ellis v. Carucci, 123
Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 241 (2007). This court will not set aside
district court factual findings if they are supported by substantial
evidence. Id. at 149, 161 P.3d at 242. The district court found that
appellant alienated the child from respondent, failed to correct past
behavioral problems, demonstrated continued poor judgment, and failed to
adhere to court orders. Contrary to appellant's assertions, these findings
are supported by substantial evidence, specifically, testimony that was
presented at the evidentiary hearing on the matter. See id. Moreover,
there is no indication that these findings demonstrate district court bias or
an improper acquiescence to the recommendation of the parenting
coordinator. See NRCP 53 (providing that a court may appoint a special
master who will prepare a report regarding the matters submitted to
them). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it
concluded that the child's best interest would be served by granting
respondent primary physical custody and limiting appellant's legal
custody rights. See NRS 125.510(2); Rivero, 125 Nev. at 421, 216 P.3d at
221 (providing that parents need not have equal decision-making power in
a joint legal custody situation); Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241.
Appellant also argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it found that appellant had not complied with the terms of
the prior stipulated order that had conditionally granted the parties joint
custody provided that appellant begin counseling for herself and the child.
The district court relied on this finding only as an alternative reason,
other than changed circumstances, to entertain respondent's motion to
modify custody. Thus, even if appellant had fully complied with the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ce
stipulation's terms and had joint custody, the district court's principal
reason for modifying custody—that doing so served the child's best
interest—would remain unaffected.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
CLAS
Parraguirre
J.
J.
cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division
Steinberg Law Group
Fine Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A