Collaborative Law with a Twist

One of the most interesting developments in Nevada family law is the emergence of collaborative law. As originally practiced, collaborative law requires both parties and their attorneys to sign a pledge not to litigate. Jennifer Abrams, a leading family law practitioner and member of the Board of Directors of the newly established group, Nevada Collaborative Professionals, believes collaborative law keeps family matters private and diminishes hostilities. Documents and pleadings alleging spousal abuse, adultery and other sordid behavior are not necessary because parties are handling their differences out of court.

Divorce filings are a matter of public record. Any person is entitled to access files of any divorce case, unless the court seals the records. Attorney Abrams says divorce courts will seal records on request, but the pleadings may still be released under certain limited circumstances.

Nevada Collaborative Professionals currently requires lawyers in Nevada who practice collaborative law to withdraw from the case if litigation becomes necessary due to failed negotiations. Attorney Abrams opposes this requirement. In theory that creates an incentive for the collaborative lawyers to try harder, but in practice the clients end up with a larger legal bill to bring on new counsel in the middle of a case. Attorney Abrams' point of view is that the availability of litigation with the attorneys who are already familiar with the case is both cost-effective and, more of an incentive to settle than the current scenario provides.

Cameras in the Courtroom and Online Access

Nevada courts make good use of technology with voice-activated cameras aimed at judges, witnesses, attorneys and litigants to videotape all family court proceedings. Copies of videotapes are readily available for a small price or at no charge if you provide your own videotape.

Divorce pleadings are not yet online, although case activity, calendars, and limited access to court minutes are currently online.

Donna's House – Supervised Visitation Centers at Local Courthouses

Supervised visitation centers have been set up at the Eighth Judicial District Family Court. Visits are supervised by court order for a payment of $20.

Removal of Minor Children from Nevada

The Nevada court recently ruled in Flynn v. Flynn that the mother who shared custody with father could not move to Southern California with the child for two years to attend theology school, despite father’s flexible schedule and ability to fly his own plane to California in approximately 45 minutes. The court reasoned that the child would be uprooted from school and live more than the current 10 minute drive from father. Furthermore, the mother could study theology in Nevada. The court concluded that only the mother, not the child, would benefit from the move.

While child support is calculated pursuant to a formula based on gross monthly income, if a court allows an out-of-state move with a child, the judge may deviate from the child support guidelines and reduce support to account for the noncustodial parent's travel expenses.

Parenting Trends

Nevada law provides that custody must be based on the best interests of the child. By statute, courts do not award custody to a parent simply because she is the mother or he is the father. There is a legal presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child.

Local court rules provide for mandatory mediation at the Family Mediation Center before custody/visitation can be litigated. The Family Mediation Center provides mediation services to parents on a sliding scale, based on income, with a maximum fee of $220. This includes mediation where neither party is allowed to be represented by counsel, and the drafting of a parenting plan on some or all of the issues agreed upon by the parties.

Alimony

The Nevada Supreme Court has established certain guidelines in awarding alimony, however, these guidelines are interpreted differently by each family court judge.

Assigned Judge

Each divorce case is assigned to one judge and the court has a "one family, one judge" rule. However, if the assigned judge has not made a substantive ruling dealing with the rights and responsibilities of the parties in a case, litigants are allowed one preemptory challenge to remove the judge. The court fee is $300 to file the challenge. A substantive ruling might involve a temporary order for support, for example, as opposed to a procedural ruling dealing with correcting a clerical error on a complaint for divorce.