Godifay v. Asgedom (Child Custody)

respondent should be the parent with primary physical custody. There was no evidence offered that appellant's work schedule would affect the children's well-being or that appellant did not make adequate arrangements for child care in his absence. See In re Marriage of Loyd, 131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 80, 84-85 (Ct. App. 2003) ("a parent may not be deprived of custody based upon his or her work schedule if adequate arrangements are made for the child's care in the parent's absence"); Silva v. Silva, 136 P.3d 371, 377 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006) (explaining that a parent's work schedule is only relevant if it is shown that the parent's work schedule affects the well-being of the children); Gerber v. Gerber, 487 A.2d 413, 416 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985); Brennan u. Brennan, 685 A.2d 1104, 1106 (Vt. 1996). Additionally, it does not appear that the district court equally considered respondent's work schedule in determining custody. Further, the district court's finding that appellant generally worked from 4 p.m. to 4 a.m., 5 days a week was not supported by substantial evidence because he testified that his work schedule could be as little as five hours a day for 3 days a week. See Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007) (providing that substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment). It also appears that the district court failed to consider which parent was more likely to foster a relationship between the three children and their adult half-sibling. NRS 125.480(4)(0 (2009). Because the district court's custody award relied on appellant's work schedule when there was no evidence that his work schedule impacted the well-being of the children or that he could not arrange adequate child care while he worked, and because the court failed to consider the children's relationship with their adult half-sibling, we conclude the court abused its

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A A76710)4

discretion by awarding primary physical custody to respondent. Wallace, 112 Nev. at 1019, 922 P.2d at 543. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.'

Parraguirre

J.

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Department J Bailey Kennedy Kunin & Carman Eighth District Court Clerk

'Because we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in awarding respondent primary physical custody, we need not address the other issues raised on appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 KJ) 1947A att.