Case ID: nev_84/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOAN F. HARRIS, Appellant, v. MAX HARRIS, Respondent.
    No. 5320
    April 26, 1968
    439 P.2d 673
    
      Harry E. Claiborne and Patrick Finnegan, of Las Vegas, for Appellant.
    
      Galane and Wines, of Las Vegas, for Respondent
   OPINION

Per Curiam:

The mother of a seven-year-old daughter seeks to set aside an order vesting custody of the daughter in the child’s father. We consider it unnecessary and unwise to repeat for posterity the counteraccusations of the parents respecting the fitness of each to assume the responsibility of custody. The trial court found the father fit. It made no finding one way or the other as to the fitness of the mother. We could imply that she was not fit to assume custody. Cf. Timney v. Timney, 76 Nev. 230, 351 P.2d 611 (1960). However, we do not deem this to be either the necessary or proper course. Since the record may be read to affirm the express finding that the father was fit to have custody, and that the best interests of the child would be served by placing her in his care, we will affirm the court’s exercise of discretion on this basis.