Travel, custody and relocation in Nevada

Nevada custody jurisdiction sits under Nev. Rev. Stat. ch. 125A (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act), §§ 125A.005 et seq., added to NRS by 2003. The home-state definition is at Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.085: “‘Home state’ means: 1. The state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 consecutive months, including any temporary absence from the state, immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. 2. In the case of a child less than 6 months of age, the state in which the child lived from birth, including any temporary absence from the state, with a parent or a person acting as a parent.”. The practical point for travel is this: a child’s home state is where they lived for six consecutive months before a case started, and a temporary absence counts toward that period. A summer with grandparents in another state does not start a clock there, and it does not let the other parent file somewhere new.

Nevada has enacted the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act at Nev. Rev. Stat. ch. 125D (Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act), §§ 125D.010 to 125D.230, added to NRS by 2007. NRS 125D.150(1): ‘A court on its own motion may order abduction prevention measures in a child custody proceeding if the court finds that the evidence establishes a credible risk of abduction of the child.’ A party may petition (125D.150(2)), and ‘A district attorney or the Attorney General acting pursuant to NRS 125A.565 may seek a warrant to take physical custody of a child pursuant to NRS 125D.200 or other appropriate abduction prevention measures’ (125D.150(3)). NRS 125D.170 requires the petition to be verified, to attach any existing custody determination, and to ‘specify the risk factors for abduction, including the relevant factors described in NRS 125D.180.’ NRS 125D.190(2): on finding a credible risk of abduction ‘the court SHALL enter an abduction prevention order,’ which must contain the 125D.190(1) items — jurisdictional basis, how notice was given, ‘a detailed description of each party’s custody and visitation rights and residential arrangements for the child,’ a civil-and-criminal-penalties warning, and ‘Identification of the child’s country of habitual residence at the time of the issuance of the order’ — plus measures reasonably calculated to prevent abduction. The 125D.190(3) menu: travel restrictions requiring a party traveling with the child outside a designated geographical area to provide ‘(1) The travel itinerary of the child; (2) A list of physical addresses and telephone numbers at which the child can be reached at specified times; and (3) Copies of all travel documents’; prohibitions on ‘Removing the child from this State, the United States or another geographic area without permission of the court or the petitioner’s written consent,’ on removing or retaining in violation of a custody determination, on removing the child from school or child care, and on approaching the child outside a supervised-visitation site; a requirement to register the order in another state before letting the child travel there; the passport measures at 125D.190(3)(d); the foreign-consulate and Hague prerequisites at (3)(e); and ‘Upon the petitioner’s request, a requirement that the respondent obtain an order from the relevant foreign country containing terms identical to the child custody determination issued in the United States.’ NRS 125D.190(4) allows supervised visitation at the respondent’s cost, a bond ‘in an amount sufficient to serve as a financial deterrent to abduction,’ and mandatory abduction-effects education. NRS 125D.190(5) permits an imminent-abduction warrant and direction of law enforcement; NRS 125D.200 authorizes an EX PARTE warrant to take physical custody where ‘there is a credible risk that the child is imminently likely to be wrongfully removed,’ with a hearing ‘at the earliest possible time after the ex parte warrant is executed.’ NRS 125D.190(6): ‘The remedies provided in this chapter are cumulative.’

NEVADA IS A CONSENT-OR-PERMISSION STATE, not A NOTICE-PERIOD STATE. There is no number of days anywhere in NRS 125C.006, 125C.0065 or 125C.007. NRS 125C.006(1): ‘If primary physical custody has been established pursuant to an order, judgment or decree of a court and the custodial 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 the custodial parent desires to take the child with him or her, the custodial parent shall, before relocating: (a) Attempt to obtain the written consent of the noncustodial parent to relocate with the child; and (b) If the noncustodial parent refuses to give that consent, petition the court for permission to relocate with the child.’ NRS 125C.0065(1) applies the identical trigger where JOINT physical custody has been established, but with a different remedy: the relocating parent must ‘petition the court for primary physical custody for the purpose of relocating.’ Both sections let the court award the relocating parent attorney’s fees and costs if the other parent refused consent ‘Without having reasonable grounds for such refusal; or For the purpose of harassing’ the relocating parent. NRS 125C.006(3) and 125C.0065(3): a parent who relocates without written consent or court permission ‘is subject to the provisions of NRS 200.359’ — the criminal detention/concealment/removal statute. NRS 125C.007(1) sets the threshold showing: the relocating parent must demonstrate ‘(a) There exists a sensible, good-faith reason for the move, and the move is not intended to deprive the non-relocating parent of his or her parenting time; (b) The best interests of the child are served by allowing the relocating parent to relocate with the child; and (c) The child and the relocating parent will benefit from an actual advantage as a result of the relocation.’ Only if that threshold is met does the court weigh the 125C.007(2) factors: likely improvement in quality of life for child and relocating parent; whether the relocating parent’s motives ‘are honorable and not designed to frustrate or defeat any visitation rights’; whether the relocating parent will comply with substitute visitation orders; whether the non-relocating parent’s opposition is honorable or ‘intended to secure a financial advantage in the form of ongoing support obligations or otherwise’; whether there will be ‘a realistic opportunity for the non-relocating parent to maintain a visitation schedule that will adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship’; and any other necessary factor. NRS 125C.007(3): the relocating parent ‘has the burden of proving that relocating with the child is in the best interest of the child.’ NRS 125C.0075 punishes a parent who relocates in violation of NRS 200.359: ‘1. The court shall not consider any post-relocation facts or circumstances regarding the welfare of the child or the relocating parent in making any determination. 2. If the non-relocating parent files an action in response to the violation, the non-relocating parent is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of the violation.’

Relocation and vacation are different questions, and orders often treat them in the same paragraph. A trip is temporary; a move changes the child’s residence. Read your own order for which one your plan actually is before you assume the relocation rule does not apply.

Nevada publishes a statewide parenting form or guideline — Statewide Nevada Supreme Court Self-Help Center form ‘Decree of Custody’ (© 2022 Nevada Supreme Court), whose Exhibit 1 is the ‘Parenting Timeshare and Holiday Schedule.’ Nevada also has statutory mandatory-language requirements for every custody order at NRS 125C.0045(5)-(8). That matters, because its default wording is what lands in a lot of orders unchanged, and it is where your travel terms probably came from.

Exhibit 1 of the statewide Decree of Custody carries a two-option Vacation clause: ‘The parents will not establish a formal vacation plan, and will instead mutually agree on vacation days and times with the children.’ OR ‘Each parent may have up to (number) ______ vacation days per year with the children. The parent shall notify the other parent of the vacation and provide a general vacation itinerary at least (number) _____ days before the planned vacation. Vacation time supersedes the normal weekly or summer schedule and is not allowed during a holiday or school break allotted to the other parent.’ Note that the number of vacation days and the number of days’ advance notice are both BLANKS — Nevada supplies the clause, not the numbers — and the required disclosure is ‘a general vacation itinerary,’ not a full one. Exhibit 1 otherwise supplies real statewide defaults for holidays: Mother’s Day and Father’s Day 9am-7pm; children’s birthdays alternating even/odd years 9am-7pm; the three-day weekends (MLK, Presidents’, Labor, Memorial and Nevada Day) allocated by a December conference each year, defaulting to the normal weekly schedule if the parties do not agree; Fourth of July alternating, July 4 at 10 a.m. to July 5 at 10 a.m.; Easter/Spring Break and Thanksgiving alternating, ‘from the day school lets out until noon the day before school resumes’; and a two-segment Winter Break (Segment 1 = first half including Christmas Eve and Christmas Day; Segment 2 = second half including New Year’s Eve and Day, beginning at noon on the first day of the second half, ‘In the event that the date marking the halfway point in the Winter break falls on December 25, Segment 2 will not begin until December 26’). The body of the decree carries the mandatory NRS 125C.0045(6) abduction warning verbatim, the NRS 125C.0045(7)-(8) Hague Convention and foreign-country bond language, a full recital of the NRS 125C.006/125C.0065 relocation requirements, and the NRS 125C.010(1)(b) habitual-residence notice (‘the State of Nevada or the state where the child resides within the United States of America is the habitual residence of the child’). What is absent: any out-of-state or out-of-country travel clause distinct from the vacation clause, and any passport provision.

Two separate Nevada mechanisms, neither of which is a routine parenting-plan passport clause. (1) UCAPA: NRS 125D.190(3)(d) lets an abduction prevention order direct ‘that the petitioner place the child’s name in the United States Department of State’s Child Passport Issuance Alert Program’; require ‘that the respondent surrender to the court or the petitioner’s attorney any United States or foreign passport issued in the child’s name, including a passport issued in the name of both the parent and the child’; and prohibit ‘the respondent from applying on behalf of the child for a new or replacement passport or visa.’ NRS 125D.190(3)(e) can make it a prerequisite to exercising custody or visitation that the respondent lodge an authenticated copy of the order with the State Department Office of Children’s Issues and the relevant foreign consulate, prove it to the court, produce ‘an acknowledgment in a record from the relevant foreign consulate or embassy that no passport application has been made, or passport issued, on behalf of the child,’ register with the U.S. Embassy and the Hague Central Authority in the destination country, and sign a Privacy Act waiver. NRS 125D.110 defines ‘travel document’ as excluding ‘a passport or visa,’ so the itinerary/travel-document measure does not reach the passport. (2) A separate, non-UCAPA hook in the custody statute: NRS 125C.0045(8) provides that if a parent ‘lives in a foreign country or has significant commitments in a foreign country,’ the parties may agree (and the court shall include) that the United States is the child’s country of habitual residence for Hague purposes, and ‘Upon motion of one of the parties, the court may order the parent to post a bond if the court determines that the parent poses an imminent risk of wrongfully removing or concealing the child outside the country of habitual residence’ — with the bond usable ‘only to pay for the cost of locating the child and returning the child to his or her habitual residence.’ NRS 125C.0045(10) defines ‘significant commitments in a foreign country’ to include a parent who ‘Possesses a passport in his or her name from a foreign country’ or who ‘Frequently travels to a foreign country’ — and the statute expressly cautions that having such commitments ‘does not create a presumption that the parent poses an imminent risk.’ Outside these two routes, no Nevada statute or statewide form says who holds the child’s passport, and the statewide Decree of Custody has no passport paragraph at all.

• Custody jurisdiction statute: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-125A.html
• Abduction Prevention Act: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-125D.html
• Relocation rule: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-125C.html
• Statewide parenting form: https://selfhelp.nvcourts.gov/images/custody/custody-decree-pdf.pdf

Every fact above is taken from the source linked beside it. Where a figure could not be confirmed from an official source, this page says so rather than printing a plausible number. Found an error? Tell us — it goes on the corrections page with the date.