Johnson v. Horodesky (Child Custody)

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