This appeal involves an ongoing custody dispute between the appellant Robert Metz (“Robert”) and the respondent Amy Metz (“Amy”). Robert appealed two orders issued by the district court in April of 2003. One order stated that the district court could not order Amy to pay child support because her income derives from supplemental security income (“SSI”) and social security disability (“SSD”) payments. The other order denied both Amy and Robert’s motions to modify the custody arrangements, with two minor changes. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded the portion of the April order that declined to take into account Amy’s SSD income and affirmed the order concerning the child custody arrangements.2 In 1998, Robert and Amy were granted a divorce. They have one child, who is now eight years old. The divorce decree awarded joint legal custody with Amy receiving primary physical custody of their child. Robert was ordered to pay $360 per month in child support. Because Amy suffers from seizures and short-term memory loss, the divorce decree required that Amy place the child in day care for eight hours each weekday. The decree also stipulated that Amy and Robert exchange physical custody of their child at the day care. Amy and Robert “have fought bitterly over child custody issues” in the ensuing years.3 Indeed, in 1999, Robert and Amy entered into a new custody arrangement in which Robert retained primary physical custody and Amy had visitation every other week-end and the entire month of July. Amy also agreed to pay $100 per month in child support.4 Three years later, Amy and Robert were back in court when Amy filed a motion to modify the custody arrangement in September of 2002, maintaining that she could provide her child with a better home environment. Robert filed a countermotion for child support arrears and an opposition to Amy’s motion. The matter was set for a hearing. However, in January 2003, Robert filed an ex parte motion for an order to show cause before the court could rule on the motions. He additionally filed for sole physical and legal custody.5 In April of 2003, the district court entered two orders in the case. First, the court concluded that it could not order Amy to pay child support because she receives SSI and SSD benefits. Second, it affirmed the 1999 custody arrangement but required that the physical exchanges take place either at the child’s school or at the Washoe Sheriff’s department and allowed both Amy and Robert telephone access to their child. Robert appealed both orders.
Morrison, Angela, "Summary of Metz v. Metz, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 86" (2004). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 688.