Gholson v. State, 111519 NVCA, 77564-COA

Docket Nº:77564-COA
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS C.J.
Party Name:SINBAD GHOLSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND KENDRA CLARK, Respondents.
Judge Panel:Tao, Bulla J. Hon. Sandra L. Pomrenze, District Judge
Case Date:November 15, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

SINBAD GHOLSON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NEVADA, DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND KENDRA CLARK, Respondents.

No. 77564-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 15, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBONS C.J.

Sinbad Gholson appeals from a post-judgment district court order in a paternity and child support matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Sandra L. Pomrenze, Judge.

In early 2010, respondent Kendra Clark initiated a child support action alleging appellant Sinbad Gholson was the father of her two minor children. Sinbad subsequently signed an order upon consent, admitting he was the father of the two children. The signed order upon consent was then filed in the child support case, establishing Sinbad's child support obligation. In October 2018, Sinbad filed a motion in the district court seeking a DNA test to confirm paternity, arguing that there was no evidence supporting the finding that he was the father of the children and that the paternity determination was based solely on Kendra's self-serving testimony. Additionally, in his reply, Sinbad argued that he was coerced into signing the order upon consent.

After a hearing on the motion, the district court concluded that Sinbad's motion was an objection to the hearing master's most recent report and recommendation, which was filed in March 2018 and addressed child support, that it was therefore untimely, and that the hearing master's report and recommendation was not clearly erroneous. Based on these findings, the district court denied Sinbad's motion and this appeal followed.

On appeal, Sinbad challenges the district court's denial of his motion, asserting that he is entitled to a blood test to determine paternity because he was coerced into signing the order upon consent admitting he was the father of the two children. This court reviews a child support order for an abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996); see also Flynn v. Flynn, 120 Nev. 436, 440, 92 P.3d 1224, 1227 (2004). Similarly, this court reviews parentage...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP