Custody case takes a twist

The battle for custody of a 7-year-old boy took an unexpected turn last week when a Family Court judge discovered a procedural error that had gone unnoticed since the case began in 2000.

Judge Cynthia "Dianne" Steel said the error meant the guardianship that was granted to the child's grandparents shortly after his birth is defective and should be set aside.

"This is a horrible way to end this," the judge said.

Steel had heard several hours of testimony Wednesday before learning that no effort had ever been made to notify the boy's biological father about the guardianship proceedings. She said two hearing masters and three judges, as well as several lawyers, had missed the oversight during the past seven years.

The discovery marked the latest twist in a bitter fight that has been brewing for years between the boy's mother, now named Chastity Primmer, and his grandparents, Matthew and Marilyn McLaughlin.

"We fought all this long just to start all over again," Primmer lamented after last week's hearing.

Primmer was 16 when she became pregnant with her first child, whom she named Jacob McLaughlin. She said her boyfriend, who was 10 years older, disappeared shortly after she told him about her pregnancy and never has sought a role in Jacob's life.

The woman said her parents knew the man's identity but did not share it with the court when they obtained the guardianship. The McLaughlins' attorney, Charles Hoskin, said the father's name did not appear on the birth certificate and no tests have been performed to establish paternity.

If the McLaughlins did not know the father's identity, Steel said, they should have tried to notify him as a "John Doe." That is accomplished via a newspaper advertisement that contains the name of the child and the case number.

"Notice should have happened," Hoskin said outside court. "It should have happened seven years ago." The lawyer has represented the McLaughlins since shortly after they initiated the guardianship proceedings.

Steel previously ruled that a hearing master erred in October 2006 when she denied Primmer's request to end the guardianship. Steel agreed to reconsider Primmer's request after finding that the hearing master had incorrectly applied a new legal standard to the case.

The judge was hearing testimony Wednesday to help her rule on the request but decided to stop the proceedings after discovering the procedural error.

Primmer, now 24, spent the morning on the witness stand and said her parents allowed Jacob to live with her for three years before taking him back in December 2005. The McLaughlins remained the boy's legal guardians during that time and cared for him five days a week while his mother worked.

Steel's decision to end the guardianship Wednesday had the effect of limiting her authority, as guardianship judge, to the issuance of a 90-day emergency order. The judge decided to keep the existing visitation schedule mostly intact but gave Primmer an additional night each week with her son.

Primmer said the events in court confused her.

"I don't know whether to feel good or bad," she said.

If the McLaughlins fail to initiate new custody proceedings in Family Court, Primmer will automatically regain custody of her son after 90 days. The McLaughlins said they do not intend to give up.

"It just seems like a travesty," Matthew McLaughlin said after the hearing. "We've been his caregivers for seven years."

When asked whether he believed his daughter was an unfit parent, Matthew McLaughlin replied, "Do you understand that just by coming to this hearing we were prepared to prove that?"

He described Jacob as a "special-needs child" who has medical problems and a short attention span. He said he does not believe his daughter is prepared to give Jacob the "extra time and parenting" the boy requires.

Primmer is now married and raising a second son. She pays her parents $450 a month in child support for Jacob.

The McLaughlins, both 42, have two adult children and are the foster parents of their 12-year-old niece. They pay to send Jacob to private school.

Primmer has said she cannot afford private school and will send Jacob to a public school if she regains custody of him.

Hoskin said he plans to file a new custody case under a Nevada law that allows nonparents who have an established relationship with a child to seek to maintain that relationship with a court order.

"Without a court order, grandparents don't have any rights," the lawyer said.

As she has in the past, Steel urged the parties to reach a resolution outside court.

What Primmer and her parents are doing to Jacob, the judge said, "is borderline inhumane."

"I think that this child has been a pawn in a way," Steel said.

Contact reporter Carri Geer Thevenot at cgeer@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0264.