Emily McFarling | Las Vegas Divorce & Family Lawyer

Druckman v. Ruscitti, 130 Nev.468, P.3d 511 (2014)

Trial court decision upheld retaining custody for our client.

Bluestein v. Bluestein, 131 Nev. 106, 345 P.3d 1044 (2015)

Reversed and remanded where trial court confirmed primary physical custody to our client.Reversed and remanded where trial court confirmed primary physical custody to our client.Reversed and remanded where trial court confirmed primary physical custody to our client.

Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 Nev. 445, 352 P.3d 1139 (2015)

Reversed and remanded where our client was allowed visitation in a foreign country.Reversed and remanded where our client was allowed visitation in a foreign country.

Eggleston v. Stuart, 137 Nev. 506, 495 P.3d 482 (2021)

Our client filed a civil rights case against Department of Family Services and other defendants regarding their handling of a juvenile case that resulted in him losing all contact with his children. The Supreme Court of Nevada held that first the District Court erred by claiming that our client was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a § 1983. The Supreme Court relied on the reasoning that our client’s claim was a substantive due process violation not a procedural due process violation because the fundamental right to bring up children is linked to the right to Liberty. Substantive due process violations are actionable when the wrongful act occurs, so the exhaustion exception applied to procedural due process claims does not apply here. The Supreme Court of Nevada also found that the District Court erred by linking the DFS findings to our client’s complaint. The complaint for a § 1983 civil rights violation did not have an administrative remedy and thus the District Court erred in dismissed the § 1983 claim for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies. Finally, the Supreme Court of Nevada found that it was improper to dismiss our client’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the claim did not arise from an administrative process, thus could not be remedy by an administrative remedy. In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Nevada found in favor of our client and reversed and remanded the dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights violation, the dismissal of his associated tort claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the dismissal of punitive damages.

Lopez v. Lopez, 139 Nev. 533, 541 P.3d 117 (Nev. App. 2023)

In this matter, we represented the Appellant in an appeal of a divorce decree involving the division of assets held within a family trust. The Court of Appeals issued an authored opinion, holding that because the spouses are the materially interested parties and divorce revokes any device granted by the settlor to their former spouse in a revocable inter vivos trust, the trust itself is not required to be named as a necessary party in the divorce where the spouses are co-settlors, co-trustees, and beneficiaries. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s distribution decision and affirmed the decree of divorce.

Ramos v. Franklin, 139 Nev. 54, 525 P.3d 1227 (2023)

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s rights to not have a grandparent visitation order entered against her. The Nevada Supreme Court used this opportunity to clarify that in a petition for visitation, where the parents have joint custody, the focus is on the petitioner’s access to the children. NRS 125C.050(3). Because the grandparents had regular access to the children, it was irrelevant to the District Court that our client denied visits. In a published opinion, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that the grandparents’ concern for the volatility of their relationships with either parent does not constitute an unreasonable restriction and, concluded that NRS 125C.050 is ambiguous, therefore they must look beyond the statute. If one parent provides the petitioners with sufficient contact with the children so that their visits are not denied or unreasonably restricted under NRS 125.050(3), the petition fails, regardless of whether the other parent provides contact.

Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 138 Nev. 539, 512 P.3d 758 (2022)

In this case, we successfully defended our client’s paternity rights to his child. When the minor child was born the Appellants executed a Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity with another man, knowing that our client could be the father. The district court concluded that biological testing overcame the third party’s Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and that a paternity dispute is not time-barred until the minor child reaches 21 years of age. The district court entered an order concluding that our client is the minor child’s father and for joint physical custody of the minor child. The mother appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court agreed with our client’s position and affirmed the district court’s ruling for our client’s paternity and joint physical custody.

Kragen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in & for Cnty. of Clark, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 49, 555 P.3d 1218 (Nev. App. 2024)

In this case we successfully defended against a Writ Petition filed by our client’s ex-wife challenging a Nevada District Court’s jurisdiction over child custody in their divorce. The jurisdictional issue arose after the ex-wife unilaterally relocated the parties’ children from Nevada to California. A few weeks later, our client filed for divorce in Nevada, while his ex-wife filed in California. The Nevada Court of Appeals issued a published decision in our favor. The ruling clarifies the meaning of ‘temporary absence’ in custody cases and requires Nevada district courts to consider the ‘totality of the circumstances’ when determining whether an absence is temporary in determining if Nevada has jurisdiction to hear a child custody case.

Nguyen v. Boynes, 133 Nev. 229, 396 P.3d 774 (2017)

Equitable adoption affirmed.Equitable adoption affirmed.

Nance v. Ferraro, 134 Nev. 152, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. App. 2018)

Award of Custody to Other Parent Reversed and Remanded.

Nevada Family Law Report A Tale of Two Courts: Analyzing Whether a Child is Well-Settled in the New Environment Under Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez and Druckman v. Ruscitti

2015

McLitho Publishing Everybody is Different, Everyone is the Same

2001

Northeastern Law Review Twelve articles, including "Rate of Lung Disease in Women Increasing Rapidly" and "New Pill May Help Smokers Quit" Tobacco Control Update

2000

Tobacco Trial Yes Virginia, Secondhand Smoke Increases Risk of Cancer

1999

Northeastern School of Law | What Could Constitute Permissible Regulation of Sexually Explicit Material on the Internet after the Playboy Decision?