IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MARIUSZ ADAMSKI, No. 67328
Appellant,
vs.
ANNA ADAMSKA,
FILED
Respondent. _ JUN 2 3 2016
TRACE K. LINDEMAN
CLERKF SUPREME COURT
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
DEPUTY CLERK
This is an appeal from a district court order declining to
exercise jurisdiction over child custody in a divorce action. Eighth Judicial
District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Sandra L. Pomrenze,
Judge.
Mariusz Adamski and Anna Adamska were married in 2008,
and resided in Poland After Mariusz obtained legal permanent resident
status in the United States, he moved to Las Vegas. Anna followed him to
the United States shortly thereafter, along with their two minor children.
After living slightly more than six months in Las Vegas, Anna returned to
Poland with the two minor children, without Mariusz's knowledge or
consent. Mariusz filed a complaint for divorce in a Nevada district court,
requesting sole legal and physical custody, along with a motion for
temporary custody, visitation, and/or exclusive possession Mariusz then
filed a petition with a Polish court for the return of his children pursuant
to the provisions of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction. Following a hearing in Poland that
Mariusz attended, the Polish court dismissed his petition. In its decision,
the Polish court established the following findings of fact: Mariusz
resorted to "cruel punishment," including maiming the children's dolls,
shouting, "nudging and pushing," and "corporal punishment."
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
16, 1%30
Both parties later participated in a series of hearings in the
Nevada district court—Mariusz in person and Anna through counsel—to
determine whether Nevada jurisdiction was proper. Mariusz appealed the
Polish court's decision, and the Polish court dismissed his appeal. Anna
later filed the Polish court's initial decision and subsequent dismissal with
the Nevada district court. The Nevada district court held several
additional hearings and the parties submitted briefs regarding jurisdiction
pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act
(UCCJEA). Mariusz never requested an evidentiary hearing. Ultimately,
the Nevada district court issued a divorce decree, and in a separate order,
recognized the Polish court's domestic violence findings, and declined to
exercise jurisdiction over child custody because it found that Nevada was
an inconvenient forum. See NRS 125A.365(4). Mariusz filed the instant
appeal regarding the district court's declination of jurisdiction.
We conclude that the district court's failure to hold an
evidentiary hearing prior to concluding that Nevada was an inconvenient
forum was not an abuse of discretion. See Rooney v. Rooney, 109 Nev. 540,
542, 853 P.2d 123, 124 (1993) ("Nevada statutes and case law provide
district courts with broad discretion concerning child custody matters.");
see also NRS 125A.365(2) ("Before determining whether it is an
inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is
appropriate for a court of another state to exercise
• jurisdiction. For this
purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall
consider all relevant factors . . . .").
We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion when it declined to exercise further jurisdiction based on forum
non conveniens. See Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc.,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1907A cer,
131 Nev., Adv. Op. 35,350 P.3d 392, 395-96 (2015) (noting that this court
reviews an order dismissing a case for forum non conveniens for an abuse
of discretion); see also Crawford v. State, 121 Nev. 744, 748, 121 P.3d 582,
585 (2005) ("An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court's decision is
arbitrary or capricious or if it exceeds the bounds of law or reason."
(internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court correctly
considered the factors outlined in NRS 125A.365. Further, contrary to
Mariusz's argument on appeal, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in its compliance with Druckman v. Ruscitti, 130 Nev., Adv. Op.
50, 327 P.3d 511 (2014). 1 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
LAI 14 J.
Douglas
J.
J.
Gibbons
'We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and conclude
that they are without merit.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
cc: Hon. Sandra L. Pomrenze, District Judge, Family Court Division
Ryan J. MacDonald
McFarling Law Group
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.
Anne R. Traum
Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A 4040