Holmes and respondent Felipe Serrano were never married and have one minor child together, who was born in 2019. In 2021, Holmes filed a petition in the district court seeking various forms of relief, including, as relevant here, primary physical custody. Serrano, in turn, filed an answer and counterclaim in which he requested, among other things, that the parties be awarded joint physical custody. The district court subsequently directed that the parties attend mediation. At the mediation, the parties agreed upon a parenting plan that established a custodial schedule. In particular, the parenting plan provided that Serrano would have physical custody each week from Saturday at 6:00 p.m. until Monday at 8:00 a.m. and from Wednesday when the child is picked up from daycare until Thursday at approximately 8:00 a.m. when the child is dropped off for daycare. Holmes was to have physical custody during the remainder of the week pursuant to the parenting plan. Although the parties were able to agree to the foregoing custodial schedule, they were unable to agree about whether their custodial arrangement should be designated as primary physical custody in Holmes’ favor or joint physical custody. As a result, the district court entered an order adopting the parenting plan but permitted briefing with respect to the proper designation for the parties’ custodial arrangement.
District Court reversed by the Nevada Court of Appeals in this decision.