Custody in Nevada.
The starting point the law actually sets, what the judge has to weigh, and the deadlines that catch people out.
See a different stateNevada
Nevada draws a careful line between a presumption and a preference, and the words are different for legal and physical custody. Legal custody – NRS 125C.002(1): 'there is a PRESUMPTION, affecting the burden of proof, that joint legal custody would be in the best interest of a minor child' if the parents agree to it (including in open court), or if a parent 'has demonstrated, or has attempted to demonstrate but has had his or her efforts frustrated by the other parent, an intent to establish a meaningful relationship with the minor child.' Physical custody – NRS 125C.0025(1) uses the softer word: 'there is a PREFERENCE that joint physical custody would be in the best interest of a minor child' on those same two triggers. NRS 125C.0035(3) then sets an order of preference, with both parents jointly first, and requires the court to state its reasons in writing if it denies a parent's application for joint physical custody. Against that, NRS 125C.003(1) presumes joint physical custody is NOT in the child's best interest where the court determines by substantial evidence that a parent cannot adequately care for the child for at least 146 days of the year, where a child is born out of wedlock and NRS 125C.003(2) applies, or where the court finds by clear and convincing evidence after an evidentiary hearing that a parent engaged in domestic violence.
Use the state’s own words
Nevada uses 'legal custody' and 'physical custody,' each joint, primary or sole, plus 'visitation' (NRS ch. 125C). The phrases you will see on filings are 'joint legal custody,' 'joint physical custody' and 'primary physical custody.' Nevada also has a 'summary proceeding for custody' for eligible cases (NRS 125C.008 to 125C.0087).
How Nevada decides
Decisions against where the child lives
Nevada treats the two as genuinely separate awards and says so. NRS 125C.002(2): 'The court may award joint legal custody without awarding joint physical custody.' Legal custody is addressed in NRS 125C.002 and physical custody in NRS 125C.0025 and 125C.003. Before any court order exists, NRS 125C.0015(2) gives both parents both: 'If a court has not made a determination regarding the custody of a child, each parent has joint legal custody and joint physical custody of the child until otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.' NRS 125C.005(2) guarantees a non-custodial parent access to the child's medical, dental and school records.
What the judge must weigh
- The wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to his or her physical custody
- Any nomination of a guardian for the child by a parent
- Which parent is more likely to allow the child to have frequent associations and a continuing relationship with the noncustodial parent
- The level of conflict between the parents
- The ability of the parents to cooperate to meet the needs of the child
- The mental and physical health of the parents
- The physical, developmental and emotional needs of the child
- The nature of the relationship of the child with each parent
- The ability of the child to maintain a relationship with any sibling
- Any history of parental abuse or neglect of the child or a sibling of the child
- Whether either parent or any other person seeking physical custody has engaged in an act of domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child or any other person residing with the child
- Whether either parent or any other person seeking physical custody has committed any act of abduction against the child or any other child
- NRS 125C.0035(2): 'Preference must not be given to either parent for the sole reason that the parent is the mother or the father of the child.' NRS 125C.0035(4) requires the court to 'set forth its specific findings' on these factors
What the child wants
No age. NRS 125C.0035(4)(a): 'The wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to his or her physical custody.' One of twelve factors on which the court must make specific findings.
Where there has been violence or abuse
NRS 125C.0035(5): a determination by the court, after an evidentiary hearing and a finding by clear and convincing evidence, that either parent or any other person seeking physical custody has engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence (as defined by NRS 33.018) against the child, a parent of the child, or any other person residing with the child, 'creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint physical custody of the child by the perpetrator of the domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child.' The court must then set out findings of fact supporting the determination and findings that the custody or visitation arrangement adequately protects the child and the victim. NRS 125C.0035(6) handles mutual allegations: if both parties committed acts, the court must, if possible, identify the primary physical aggressor, weighing all prior acts, the relative severity of injuries, the likelihood of future injury, and whether either acted in self-defense – if it can identify one, the presumption applies only to that person; if it cannot, the presumption applies to both. NRS 125C.003(1)(c) carries the same presumption into the joint-physical-custody analysis. Related provisions: NRS 125C.230 (presumption where a parent is a perpetrator of domestic violence), NRS 125C.210 (child conceived as a result of sexual assault), NRS 125C.220 (parent convicted of first-degree murder of the other parent), NRS 125C.243 and 125C.245 (limits on removing a child from a parent for 'reunification treatment,' expert evidence, and a ban on ordering treatment to remediate a child's resistance to contact with a parent alleged to have committed domestic violence or child abuse).
The paperwork and the people
The parenting plan
No. NRS 125C.005(1) is entirely discretionary: 'The court may, when appropriate, require the parents to submit to the court a plan for carrying out the court's order concerning custody.' What the order itself must contain is stricter – NRS 125C.0045(5): any order awarding a limited right of custody 'must define that right with sufficient particularity to ensure that the rights of the parties can be properly enforced,' including all specific times and terms, and 'sufficient particularity means a statement of the rights in absolute terms and not by the use of the term reasonable or other similar term which is susceptible to different interpretations by the parties.' In other words, 'reasonable visitation' is not an acceptable Nevada order. Every order must also carry the NRS 200.359 abduction warning and a Hague Convention provision (NRS 125C.0045(6)-(7)).
Mediation
Yes in the populated counties, by statute. NRS 3.475: 'In a county whose population is 700,000 or more' – Clark County – 'the district court SHALL establish by rule approved by the Supreme Court a program of MANDATORY mediation in cases that involve the custody or visitation of a child.' NRS 3.500 requires the same in counties of 100,000 or more but less than 700,000 (Washoe), and permits, but does not require, a program in smaller counties, including joint programs across counties. Both statutes require the program to 'authorize the court to exclude a case from the program for good cause shown, including, but not limited to, a showing that: (1) There is a history of child abuse or domestic violence by one of the parties; (2) The parties are currently participating in private mediation; or (3) One of the parties resides outside of the jurisdiction of the court.' The mediator may report to the court only whether the dispute was resolved, and fees are on a sliding scale based on ability to pay.
If the court appoints someone to look into it
Nevada's statute is thin here. NRS 125C.0025(2): 'For assistance in determining whether an award of joint physical custody is appropriate, the court may direct that an investigation be conducted.' NRS 125C.0035(4) requires specific written findings on the best-interest factors, which in practice is often what an evaluation supports. There is no chapter 125C provision setting who pays for an evaluator or guardian ad litem in a private custody case; that is handled by the court's appointing order and by district court rules.
Moving away
What you must do before you move
Nevada has no mileage number – the trigger is the effect on the other parent's relationship. NRS 125C.006 (parent with primary physical custody) and NRS 125C.0065 (parents with joint physical custody) both apply when a parent 'intends to relocate his or her residence to a place outside of this State or to a place within this State that is at such a distance that would substantially impair the ability of the other parent to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child,' and wants to take the child. In both cases the relocating parent must, BEFORE relocating, attempt to obtain the other parent's written consent; if consent is refused, a parent with primary physical custody petitions the court for permission to relocate, and a parent with joint physical custody petitions for primary physical custody for the purpose of relocating. NRS 125C.007(1) requires the relocating parent to show a sensible, good-faith reason for the move that is not intended to deprive the other parent of parenting time; that the child's best interests are served; and that the child and the relocating parent will gain 'an actual advantage.' Only then does the court weigh six further factors (NRS 125C.007(2)), and NRS 125C.007(3) puts the burden of proof on the relocating parent. Moving without consent or a court order exposes the parent to prosecution under NRS 200.359 as a category D felony, and under NRS 125C.0075 the court 'shall not consider any post-relocation facts or circumstances' and the other parent is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. The court may also award fees against a parent who unreasonably or harassingly refuses to consent (NRS 125C.006(2), 125C.0065(2)).
Later on
Changing the order
NRS 125C.0045(1)(b) lets the court 'at any time modify or vacate its order, even if custody was determined pursuant to an action for divorce and the divorce was obtained by default without an appearance in the action by one of the parties.' NRS 125C.0045(2): 'Any order for joint custody may be modified or terminated by the court upon the petition of one or both parents or on the court's own motion if it is shown that the best interest of the child requires the modification or termination. The court shall state in its decision the reasons for the order of modification or termination if either parent opposes it.' There is no statutory waiting period. NRS 125C.0045(4) expressly allows a party to proceed without a lawyer.
If you were never married
Nevada starts with equality – NRS 125C.0015(1): 'The parent and child relationship extends equally to every child and to every parent, regardless of the marital status of the parents,' and NRS 125C.0015(2) gives both parents joint legal and joint physical custody until a court orders otherwise. But NRS 125C.003(2) carves out a real exception. A court may award primary physical custody of a child born out of wedlock to the mother if she has not married the father, no paternity judgment or order (including through the expedited process) has been entered, AND the father is not subject to any presumption of paternity under NRS 126.051, has never acknowledged paternity under NRS 126.053, or has had actual knowledge of his paternity but abandoned the child. It may award primary physical custody to the father if the mother has abandoned the child and the father has provided sole care and custody in her absence. 'Abandoned' is defined in NRS 125C.003(3)(a) as failing for a continuous period of at least six months to provide substantial personal and economic support, or knowingly declining for at least six months to have any meaningful relationship with the child. And NRS 125C.003(1)(b) makes joint physical custody presumptively not in the child's best interest where that subsection applies.
Two Nevada surprises. First, if there is no court order yet, you already share custody – NRS 125C.0015(2) gives both parents joint legal and joint physical custody by operation of law. That cuts both ways: neither parent can lawfully keep the child from the other before an order exists, and neither parent has a stronger claim just because the child sleeps at their house. Second, Nevada is unusually strict about moving. There is no mileage trigger, so a move across the valley can qualify if it 'would substantially impair' the other parent's relationship, and moving without written consent or a court order is not just a family-court problem – NRS 200.359 makes it a category D felony, and under NRS 125C.0075 the judge will refuse to look at how well the child has adjusted since the move.
What we could not confirm
- Two things we could not confirm from an official Nevada source. (1) How much time counts as 'joint physical custody' in Nevada is set by Nevada Supreme Court case law, not by NRS 125C – practitioners generally work from roughly a 40 percent floor, but we will not give you a number we could not verify on a state site. Ask a Nevada family lawyer, because the label affects child support. (2) Nevada's chapter 125C does not say who pays for a custody evaluator or a guardian ad litem in a private case, or set a case-law standard for modifying primary physical custody; both come from district court rules and Nevada Supreme Court decisions. Ask the clerk in your judicial district for the local rule and the current fee arrangement.
Compare all fifty states
Where 50/50 really is the default, and the twenty-six states where nothing is presumed.
And the money side
How Nevada calculates child support, and the overnight number that changes it.