Columnist Sandra Thompson: ‘Inappropriate’ custody change still stands

Sandra Thompson

Sunday, Oct. 10, 1999 | 10:33 a.m.

Sandra Thompson is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or through e-mail at thompson@lasvegassun.com.

WHEN DIANE took her husband to court in September 1998 for failure to pay child support, she couldn't believe the outcome.

Instead of enforcing the support order, then-Family Court Judge Gary Redmon gave custody of the couple's two young daughters to the husband, based solely on his say-so that Diane interfered with his visitation. Redmon also held Diane in contempt and threatened her with jail.

"Redmon made an irrational decision on a split second's notice," Diane says. "It was my motion that brought him (her husband) to court.

"Redmon violated my civil rights. I have a right to help raise my children."

Dumbfounded, she discussed her case on a radio talk show. A week later, Redmon recused himself.

According to Nevada law, custody should not be changed unless there is a change in circumstance. But a review of several cases shows that custody is changed arbitrarily without an evidentiary hearing.

It was the most devastating blow for Diane since she filed for divorce in July 1997. More than two years later, the divorce still is not final. "I don't even know why," Diane says.

Although there is no divorce decree, Diane's husband was awarded their house. He claimed in court that she took everything out of the house. She says she could take nothing from the home -- not even her clothes. Her husband accused her of taking drugs, which was later found to be untrue when she tested negative for drugs. He accused her of allowing a friend to abuse the children. That also was not substantiated.

Diane is representing herself in court. After five attorneys, she has no more money for legal fees. At one point she thought she had found an attorney willing to fight for her rights. She paid the attorney a $2,000 retainer. A week later the attorney said she could not take the case because of a conflict. The attorney discovered that one of her other clients was a relative of Diane's husband. The attorney returned only $300 of the retainer to Diane.

Diane's case was assigned to Judge William Voy. According to the minutes of a May hearing, Voy noted that Redmon's change in custody "was not in the manner the Supreme Court requires it to be done."

"... a change in custody ... should not have happened as it did without Judge Redmon first being apprised of the facts or without holding an evidentiary hearing or reading the opposition," the minutes state.

In July Voy made his own custody ruling, taking into consideration "the procedural history of the case." As he spoke from the bench, Voy paused several times as if he were agonizing over the decision. "There are moments that I have when I enjoy this job and other times when I do not," he said in court.

Redmon based his original custody decision on the husband's contention that Diane had frustrated his attempts to see his children 44 times, which he listed in a journal. Diane was not allowed to provide evidence to the contrary.

In the hearing before Voy, Diane showed letters from her husband or his attorney saying why he had not picked up the girls for visitation. The letters were proof, she says, that she did not interfere with his visitation. Her husband was the one who didn't show up.

Unlike Redmon, Voy discounted the husband's journal. He also did not find any evidence of abuse as claimed by Diane's husband.

Voy noted that all parties in the case "overexaggerated their positions. They reacted sometimes in haste."

In rendering his decision on a permanent custody change, Voy said, "I don't believe Judge Redmon's order was appropriate the way it was done. Awarding custody by default is not appropriate."

Despite that, Voy ruled that Diane's husband would keep primary physical custody of the girls. Diane would have the girls three weekends a month.

Voy said he based his decision on the "best interests of the children." Although an evaluator recommended joint custody, the judge said alternating weeks "only creates more confusion and scheduling problems."

Diane says she doesn't blame Voy. She says Redmon's original order was wrong.

She faces another hearing next week on her husband's motion seeking attorney's fees and child support. Diane says she intends to help support her children, but her savings have been depleted and she doesn't have a job.

"I'm not sure anymore if I'm coming or going, fighting or falling," Diane says. "I will do whatever it takes to convince enough of the right people to prevent this nightmare, any part of it, from ever happening to another family."