the custody award was an abuse of discretion. Having considered the
parties' arguments and the joint appendix, we conclude that appellant's
arguments lack merit.
Appellant first argues that the district court's finding that
respondent was the parent more likely to allow frequent associations and
a continuing relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent,
see NRS 125.480(4)(c) (2009) 2 , is not supported by substantial evidence.
This court reviews district court findings of fact for substantial evidence,
"which is evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to
sustain a judgment." Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239,
242 (2007). Evidence presented at the custody hearing supports the
district court's findings including testimony that appellant substantially
delegated his child supervision duties to the child's paternal grandmother,
concealed his travel from respondent, and resented the child's relationship
with respondent's husband. See id. Testimony also supports the district
court's finding that appellant's schedule and history of extensive out-of-
state travel renders an order of joint custody impractical and that
appellant's travel did not enhance the child's stability and growth. See id.
Overall, the district court found respondent to be more credible, and this
court will not reweigh on appeal the credibility of witnesses. Castle v.
Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 103, 86 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2004).
Appellant next argues that the district court abused its
discretion by awarding respondent primary physical custody, but granting
appellant visitation that exceeds 40 percent of the days in a year. This
court in Rivero v. River°, 125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009), provided as a
2 NRS125.480 (2009) was repealed and reenacted in NRS Chapter
125C by 2015 Nev. Stat., Ch. 445 §§ 8, 19.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
guideline that "each parent must have physical custody of the child at
least 40 percent of the time to constitute joint physical custody." 125 Nev.
at 425-26, 216 P.3d at 224. Although River° provides a 40-percent
guideline for when joint physical custody may be considered, the child's
best interest remains paramount, and here the district court made its
decision based upon the child's best interest and did not abuse its
discretion by awarding respondent primary physical custody subject to
appellant's liberal visitation. See Bluestein v. Bluestein, 131 Nev., Adv.
Op. 14, 345 P.3d 1044, 1048 (2015) (providing that "klegardless of [the 40-
percent Rivero] guideline, . . in custody matters, the child's best interest
is paramount"); Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241 (recognizing "the
district court's broad discretionary powers to determine child custody
matters").
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pickering
e adA. tiAP ' J.
cc: Hon. Kenneth E. Pollock, District Judge, Family Court Division
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
Hanratty Law Group
Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A