In re Visitation of Persons of J.C.B., 091619 NVSC, 76831
|Party Name:||IN THE MATTER OF THE VISITATION OF THE PERSONS OF: J.C.B.; K.R.B.; L.B.B.; AND L.A.B., MINORS. v. JUSTIN C. B., Respondent. PAULA B., Appellant,|
|Judge Panel:||Hardesty, J., Stiglich, J., Silver, J. Hon. Linda Marquis, District Judge, Family Court Division Robert E. Gaston, Settlement Judge|
|Case Date:||September 16, 2019|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Nevada|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a final order dismissing a petition for grandparent visitation and a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Linda Marquis, Judge.
Justin C. B. is the father of J.C.B., K.R.B., L.B.B., and L.A.B. Gretchen W. B. is the mother of J.C.B. and K.R.B. Stephanie B. is the mother of L.B.B. and L.A.B.
As pertinent here, 1 Gretchen was a member of the Hualapai Indian Tribe in Arizona. She filed for divorce from Justin in the Hualapai Tribal Court and received temporary custody of J.C.B. and K.R.B., who are also members of the Tribe. The Tribal Court granted the divorce in June 2017. After Gretchen passed away unexpectedly in December 2017, the Tribal Court restored legal and physical custody of J.C.B. and K.R.B. to Justin.
J.C.B. and K.R.B. moved to Clark County to live with Justin, Stephanie, L.B.B., and L.A.B. on December 29, 2017. On May 17, 2018, Justin's mother, Paula B., filed a petition in Eighth Judicial District Court for grandparent visitation of all four of Justin's children pursuant to NRS 125C.050. After sending Paula a letter apprising her of jurisdictional concerns with her petition, Justin filed an opposition and countermotion to dismiss the petition and to award Justin attorney fees and costs. The district court found that Paula did not allege facts that would allow her to seek visitation as to L.B.B. or L.A.B., and that the Hualapai Tribe, not the Nevada court, had jurisdiction over J.C.B. and K.R.B., and accordingly granted Justin's motion. The district court also awarded Justin attorney fees and costs under NRS 18.010 and EDCR 7.60, as the court found Justin was the prevailing party and the petition was frivolous. This appeal followed.
Paula first advances various arguments as to why the district court had jurisdiction here, including that NRS 125C.050 expressly provides jurisdiction, that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) do not apply to these facts, and that if the UCCJEA does apply then NRS 125A.305 provides Nevada with jurisdiction. We disagree, and conclude the district court properly dismissed the petition.
We review questions of standing and subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. 365, 368, 252 P.3d 206, 208 (2011); Friedman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 842, 847, 264 P.3d 1161, 1165 (2011). We also review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. Valdez v. Aguilar, 132 Nev. 388, 390, 373 P.3d 84, 85 (2016). When interpreting a statute, we strive to give effect to a statute's plain meaning where the language is unambiguous. Id. Whenever possible, we interpret statutes within a common statutory scheme in harmony to avoid unreasonable results and to further the general purpose of the statutes. S. Nev. Homebuilders Ass'n v. Clark Cty., 121 Nev. 446, 449, 117 P.3d 171, 173 (2005).
As an initial matter, we conclude Paula does not have standing to petition for visitation under NRS 125C.050 as to either L.B.B. or L.A.B., as she has not pleaded facts that meet the statutory prerequisites to obtain a right of visitation. See Stockmeier v. State, Dep't of Corr., 122 Nev. 385, 393, 135...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP