Kelley v. Kelley

Supreme Court of the State of Nevada · Family Law

Family LawChild CustodyLegal CustodyMedical Decision-MakingBest Interests of the Childjoint legal custodymedical decisionsvaccination

Facts

After their divorce, Brooke and Scott Kelley stipulated to joint legal custody of their two minor children and agreed to confer on medical decisions. They later disagreed about whether their older child, 11-year-old G.W.-K., should receive a COVID-19 vaccine; Scott favored vaccination, while Brooke objected based on the vaccine's novelty, alleged unknown long-term effects, and other concerns. At the evidentiary hearing, the parties submitted the children's pediatrician's recommendation that G.W.-K. should be vaccinated, though the younger child was not yet eligible. The district court took judicial notice of CDC and AAP guidance, accepted the pediatrician's recommendation, and awarded Scott sole legal custody for the limited purpose of obtaining the vaccine for G.W.-K.

Issue

When parents with court-ordered joint legal custody disagree over a medical decision for their child, should the court resolve the dispute under the best-interest-of-the-child standard or under a medically necessary standard? If the best-interest standard applies, what factors should guide the court's analysis?

Rule

When parents with court-ordered joint legal custody of a minor child disagree on a medical decision, the district court breaks the tie by determining which course of action is in the child's best interest. In making that determination, the court should consider nonexhaustive factors: (1) the seriousness of the harm the child is suffering or the substantial likelihood the child will suffer serious harm; (2) the evaluation or recommendation of a medical professional; (3) the risks involved in medically treating the child; and (4) if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference, the child's expressed preference. A medical professional's recommendation is relevant but not necessarily conclusive.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a divorce in Reno, Maya Torres and Daniel Torres share court-ordered joint legal custody of their 9-year-old son. They disagree about whether he should begin a physician-recommended course of allergy injections; Maya argues the court may approve treatment only if it is "medically necessary" under a state insurance definition, while Daniel asks the family court to decide based on the child's welfare.

What is the proper standard for the court to apply?

Explanation. When parents with court-ordered joint legal custody disagree about a medical decision, the court resolves the impasse under the best-interest-of-the-child standard. The majority rejected use of an insurance-based "medically necessary" definition because that would shift the inquiry away from the child's best interest. Physical-custody factors do not automatically control this distinct medical-decision dispute. (Derived from Kelley v. Kelley (n.d.).)