A judge who modified a mother’s custody rights was disciplined by the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. The Commission found that the judge held the mother in contempt for failing to comply with the father’s visitation rights, but the judge did not allow the mother to rebut the judge’s finding. In addition, the judge modified the mother’s custody rights of the child, which the Commission found was a sanction to holding the mother in contempt. The Commission ordered the judge to be publicly reprimanded and take a mandatory course on family law. The judge appealed the Commission’s disciplinary actions. The Court held that, when taking all the facts into context, the judge did not hold the mother in contempt, but instead admonished the mother and scheduled a show-cause hearing to then decide whether or not to hold the mother in contempt. The Court also held that the custody rights modification was not a sanction to holding the mother in contempt, but was made for the best interest of the child. The Court reversed the Commission’s disciplinary actions because there was no showing of a deliberate or knowing violation, and there were no aggravating factors found.
Parr, Holly, "In re Hughes, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 46 (July 16, 2020)" (2020). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1331.