Rennels v. Rennels
127 Nev. 564
Nev.2011Background
- Audrey Rennels, appellant, sought nonparent visitation with Martina under NRS 125C.050 after Roger Rennels restricted visitation
- A stipulation and court order defined a visitation schedule with four supervised visits per year and guardians ad litem; counseling and mediation were planned
- By 2008, Dr. Paglini recommended unsupervised visits, but Roger refused; Audrey moved to enforce the order and Roger/Jennifer moved to terminate Audrey’s rights
- District court denied dismissal, allowed evidentiary hearing, but the matter was settled; the order was treated as a final stipulation
- In December 2008, Audrey’s motion to compel and Roger/Jennifer’s termination motion proceeded; the district court terminated Audrey’s visitation
- Nevada Supreme Court holds the stipulation was a final judgment and that the parental presumption does not govern modification of judicially approved nonparent visitation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the stipulation of visitation a final judgment precluding relitigation? | Audrey argues the stipulation was a final order and res judicata applies | Roger/Jennifer contend the order was not final or subject to modification only by new proceedings | Yes, the stipulation is final and precludes relitigation |
| Whether the parental presumption applies to modification of nonparent visitation? | Audrey relies on Troxel that parent wishes are given weight but argues safety of the order requires stability | Roger/Jennifer rely on Troxel to require parental deference in any modification | Parental presumption does not apply to modifications of judicially approved nonparent visitation |
| What standard governs modification or termination of nonparent visitation? | Audrey argues for modification only with substantial change in circumstances and child’s best interest | Roger/Jennifer contend standard should defer to parental preference and best interests | Adopt Ellis two-prong test: substantial change in circumstances and best interests; require consideration without parental presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental presumption gives weight to fit parents' wishes)
- Hudson v. Jones, 122 Nev. 708, 138 P.3d 429 (2006) (parens patriae presumption does not apply to litigated custody modifications)
- Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 161 P.3d 239 (2007) (two-prong test for modification: substantial change and best interests)
- Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 86 P.3d 1042 (2004) (res judicata considerations in custody modifications; finality of settlements)
- Hopper v. Hopper, 113 Nev. 1138, 946 P.2d 171 (1997) (finality and stability considerations in custody disputes)
- Mosley v. Figliuzzi, 113 Nev. 51, 930 P.2d 1110 (1997) (animosity between parties is not alone sufficient to modify custody)
- Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009) (custody matters generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, with de novo legal questions)
- Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 874 P.2d 729 (1994) (finality and enforceability of settlement in custody matters)