Harrison v. Harrison
2016 NV 56
| Nev. | 2016Background
- Kirk and Vivian Harrison entered a stipulated district-court custody order granting joint legal and physical custody of their two minor children; the stipulation was adopted by the court.
- The stipulation included a "teenage discretion" clause: once a child turns 14 the child "shall have 'teenage discretion'" to determine time with each parent, limited to adjustments that do not alter the joint custody arrangement.
- The stipulation also authorized appointment of a parenting coordinator to resolve disputes and allowed the district court to define that role if the parties did not agree.
- A dispute arose when the older child turned 14 and expressed a desire to live primarily with Vivian; Kirk sought judicial clarification and later sought modification to invalidate or narrow the teenage-discretion clause and to void the parenting-coordinator provision.
- The district court denied Kirk’s motion, interpreting the teenage-discretion clause as permitting limited schedule adjustments without abrogating joint custody and appointing a parenting coordinator with authority limited to nonsubstantive matters and subject to court review.
- Kirk appealed; the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting both arguments that the clauses violated public policy or unconstitutionally delegated judicial authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kirk) | Defendant's Argument (Vivian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of "teenage discretion" clause | Clause is against public policy and improperly shifts custody decisions from the court; alternatively should be construed as permitting only non-binding requests | Clause is a permissible, limited parental agreement to give teens flexibility to request schedule changes that do not disturb joint custody | Clause upheld: parents may grant limited discretion to children; it does not violate best-interest standard or abrogate joint custody |
| Proper construction of clause (request vs. binding discretion) | Clause should be read to allow only requests that either parent may deny (i.e., subject to parental veto) | Clause as written grants the child mandatory limited discretion to seek/adjust time (“shall have”) so long as joint custody remains intact | Court declines to rewrite the agreement; enforces the parties’ chosen language granting limited discretion |
| Parenting coordinator — best interests / third-party intrusion | Coordinator increases third-party intrusion and harms children; provision should be voided | Coordinator can reduce conflict, promptly resolve routine disputes, and serve children's best interests in this contentious case | Provision upheld: coordinator limited to nonsubstantive matters can serve children’s best interests |
| Parenting coordinator — unlawful delegation / due process | Provision unlawfully delegates judicial authority and permits binding decisions without required judicial review | Parties consented; coordinator’s role is limited and recommendations are reviewable by the court; appointment does not usurp judicial power | No improper delegation: coordinator’s scope is limited, party objections trigger court review, and due process preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009) (parties’ contracts will be enforced unless unconscionable, illegal, or against public policy)
- Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 161 P.3d 239 (2007) (district courts have broad discretion in custody matters; appellate review is for abuse of discretion)
- Miller v. A & R Joint Venture, 97 Nev. 580, 636 P.2d 277 (1981) (public policy limits enforceability of contracts)
- Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) (parents’ private decisionmaking about childrearing is entitled to deference; state intrusion requires strong justification)
- In re A.B., 128 Nev. 764, 291 P.3d 122 (2012) (a master’s findings are advisory; the court must exercise independent judgment)
- Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 371 P.2d 278 (1962) (constitutional limits on delegation of trial-court decisionmaking in custody cases)
- Bower v. Bournay-Bower, 15 N.E.3d 745 (Mass. 2014) (discussing parenting coordinators’ hybrid mediation/arbitration roles and limits on binding authority)