The race for Clark County Family Court Department R features a contest between incumbent Judge Bill Henderson and attorney Marilyn Caston. Judge Henderson, first elected in 2008, is seeking his fourth six-year term. In the July primary election, Caston secured 45% of the vote, while Henderson received 35% of the vote among three candidates. Early voting for the position began Saturday, October 17, with Election Day set for Tuesday, November 3.
Judge Henderson attended Washburn University School of Law in 1984 and was admitted to the Nevada Bar in 1987. Evaluations of his tenure show varied results. In the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Judging the Judges 2025 poll, half of the 107 attorneys who assessed Judge Henderson indicated he should be retained. His highest score in this poll was for integrity, while his lowest score was for legal ability. Judicial records tracked by Our Nevada Judges indicate that of 38 appeals filed on Judge Henderson’s rulings during his three terms, the judge has been found in error 50% of the time. Judge Henderson did not respond to requests for an interview. His website lists endorsements from various law enforcement associations, Veterans in Politics, the Nevada Veterans Association, the AFL-CIO of Nevada, and IATSE 720. As of October 1, Judge Henderson had raised $49,000 for his campaign and reported $12,000 on hand.
Marilyn Caston, the challenger, earned a degree in Political Science from UNLV before obtaining her law degree from Boyd School of Law. She was admitted to practice in Nevada in 2009. Caston has stated her reasons for running include a perceived lack of “general family law experience” among some judges elected to Family Court in 2020. She noted past issues with judges bridging the gap from specialized areas of family law when dealing with common matters such as divorce, child custody, termination, and child support. Caston has proposed the creation of a Family Court equivalent to a business court to handle financially complicated divorce cases, citing similar, or potentially more complex, fiduciary duties involved. Her campaign had raised $20,800 as of July, with $3,100 in the bank. Caston's endorsements include SEIU Nevada, Culinary Local 226, Southern Nevada Building Trades, Carpenters Local 1977, Teamsters Nevada, PLAN Action, Independent Black Voters, and the National Organization of Women (NOW).
A point of divergence between the candidates centers on legal representation in Family Court. On his website, Judge Henderson advises Family Court litigants not to forgo hiring an attorney, at least initially, to navigate court-ordered mediation. Caston views this advice as unrealistic for the estimated 70% to 80% of parties who are unrepresented in such proceedings. She asserts that the mandatory mediation process generally proves ineffective when an attorney becomes involved. Caston has highlighted a program spearheaded by Family Court Judge Gregory Gordon for unrepresented litigants as a successful model. She described the program as one where parties can present their evidence and witnesses directly to the judge, who then asks questions to make a decision, with no lawyers involved. Caston added that she has been on the other side of cases with unrepresented litigants, acknowledging that without an attorney, parties are at a disadvantage.
The use of artificial intelligence in legal pleadings is another area where Caston has expressed concerns. She described it as a “nightmare,” stating that AI programs “will make stuff up” in an attempt to please users. Caston noted that her own clients have submitted AI-generated content that she immediately recognized as untrue, leading to a loss of credibility when presented in court or pleadings. She also stated that attorneys using AI are “getting in trouble” as it can “hallucinate cases and will misstate things.” If elected, Caston stated she would differentiate her approach when admonishing an attorney versus an unrepresented litigant for using AI in pleadings, recognizing that attorneys are held to a different standard. She did, however, suggest one beneficial application for AI: as a “tone monitor” for litigants communicating with their ex-partners, helping them convey messages more politely and without being combative.
Caston further contended that the way parents communicate can be crucial to a judge's ruling in Family Court. She explained that if a party is “perceived to be creating the conflict,” it can significantly influence the outcome, as judges often look for the party who “can overlook their own emotional response” in the children's best interest. A text message entered as evidence, for example, could be decisive in a custody case, often leading judges to inquire about how parties communicate with one another. If elected, Caston also stated her intention to advocate for earlier start times in Family Court and for improved communication with parties, who she observed sometimes arrive for hearings without prior notification that they have been cancelled.
Early voting for Clark County Family Court Department R began Saturday, October 17. Voters will make their final decision on Election Day, Tuesday, November 3.