Henderson, II v. Henderson

RS 130.205(1)(b)'s provision allowing the parties to consent to 'urisdiction did not apply. And because Pennsylvania is the child's home state, the Pennsylvania child support order controlled. NRS 130.207(2) (providing that if two states have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction because at least one of the parties resides in each of the states, the order from the state in which the child resides controls). Thus, the district court did not err in relinquishing jurisdiction over child support to the Pennsylvania court. Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to include findings of facts and conclusions of law in its order because the order was supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Williams v. Williams, 120 Nev. 559, 566, 97 P.3d 1124, 1129 (2004)

("Rulings supported by substantial evidence will not be disturbed on appeal." (internal quotations marks omitted)). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Parraguirre

, J. we' Dougla s ?"

J.

cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge Warm Springs Law Group Christopher P. Burke Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947k