Before Justices Saitta, Hardesty, and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
Both parties appealed from a divorce decree; the Court consolidated the appeals and addressed a district court’s ability to enforce or modify a child custody order when neither the divorced parties nor the children live in Nevada. Having resolved the issues involving personal jurisdiction in an earlier appeal, the Court concluded that under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) a district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order despite the parties having moved unless and until a court from the new state enters an order modifying the original order in accordance with the UISFA. Courts do not, however, retain jurisdiction to modify the order. Addressing whether the district court had modified the support order or simply clarified it to assist in enforcement, the Court held that a clarification would define the parties previously articulated rights, and a modification would change the rights granted under the previous order. In this case, the district court had modified the order and was without jurisdiction to do so. Reversed and remanded. (Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
Thursday, January 26, 2012
In re Parental Rights as to S.M.M.D., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 2 (January 26, 2012)
Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Justice Pickering.
In this appeal involving the Indian Children Welfare Act, the Court determined that the specific language of the Indian Child Welfare Act allowed the tribe and the state to agree to state court jurisdiction over a termination of parental rights for Indian children, despite the general rule that parties cannot agree to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a court. The Court also rejected the appellant’s argument that the state court lacked jurisdiction because of failure to comply with notice formalities because the appellant had actual notice and participated in the hearing in which her parental rights were terminated. In addressing an issue of general applicability: the Court confirmed that a court always has jurisdiction to determine if it has jurisdiction. Affirmed. (Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
In this appeal involving the Indian Children Welfare Act, the Court determined that the specific language of the Indian Child Welfare Act allowed the tribe and the state to agree to state court jurisdiction over a termination of parental rights for Indian children, despite the general rule that parties cannot agree to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a court. The Court also rejected the appellant’s argument that the state court lacked jurisdiction because of failure to comply with notice formalities because the appellant had actual notice and participated in the hearing in which her parental rights were terminated. In addressing an issue of general applicability: the Court confirmed that a court always has jurisdiction to determine if it has jurisdiction. Affirmed. (Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)