consider the factors enumerated in NRS 125.480(4), including whether a 

party has engaged in any act of domestic violence, either against the child 

or the parent of the child. NRS 125.480(4)(k). If the district court 

determines by clear and convincing evidence that a party has committed 

domestic violence, there is a rebuttable presumption that joint custody is 

not in the best interest of the child. NRS 125.480(5). 

This court reviews a district court's custody determination for 

an abuse of discretion, Wallace v. Wallace, 112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 

541, 543 (1996), and will not set aside the district court's factual findings 

unless they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence. 

Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 668, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009). In this 

case, the district court considered a letter written by appellant, as well as 

testimony from both parties, and concluded that appellant was a 

perpetrator of domestic violence throughout the marriage. This court will 

not reweigh the credibility of witnesses on appeal, as that duty rests 

within the trier of fact's sound discretion. Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 

103, 86 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2004). Having reviewed the record, we conclude 

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the 

presumption under NRS 125.480(5) and awarding respondent primary 

physical custody. 2 

2Appellant requested a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, but 

failed to serve the court reporter or pay for the transcripts. NRAP 

9(a)(3)(B), (a)(4). Appellant has the burden of providing this court with an 

adequate appellate record, see Carson Ready Mix, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank 

of Nev., 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981), and any evidence not 

provided in the record on appeal is presumed to support the district court's 

decision. Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 

P.3d 131, 135 (2007). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A en 
SUPREME COURT 

Of 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

Appellant next argues that the district court abused its 

discretion because it did not order a custody evaluation. Appellant waived 

this argument, however, because there is no indication from the record 

that he requested such an evaluation below and he provides no authority 

that would impose an affirmative duty on a district court to order such an 

evaluation in this case. See Wolff v. Wolff, 112 Nev. 1355, 1363-64, 929 

P.2d 916, 921 (1996) (providing that generally an argument not raised 

below is waived on appeal). 

Appellant next argues that his court-ordered child support is 

improper because he no longer earns the income upon which the support 

amount is based. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the child support 

award. 3 See Wallace, 112 Nev. at 1019, 922 P.2d at 543 (explaining that 

this court reviews a district court's child support award for an abuse of 

discretion). 

Finally, appellant argues that respondent was obligated to 

maintain appellant on her health insurance during the divorce proceeding, 

and her failure to do so caused him to incur medical expenses. The district 

court found that appellant's lapse in health insurance coverage was 

largely due to his own neglect or misunderstanding, rather than 

respondent's fault. Appellant has pointed to no evidence in the record 

demonstrating otherwise. See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 

3We note that a child support award may be modified upon a 

showing of changed circumstances since the award was made, see NRS 

125B.145(4), but such a motion must be brought in the first instance in 

the district court. See Wolff, 112 Nev. at 1363-64, 929 P.2d at 921. 

3 
C.J. 

Picker 

123 Nev. 598, 603, 172 P.3d 131, 135 (2007). Thus, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion. 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Dale P. Ahrens 

Warm Springs Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A afelp