In the 2009 Rivero case, the Nevada Supreme Court redefined “joint custody” to include all cases in which parents share custody 60/40 or closer (essentially, a 3 days to 4 days a week time share).
If parties disagree about child custody or visitation, they are required by statute (in most cases) to go through the Court’s Family Mediation Center (“FMC”) for mediation (using a third party to try to get the parties to agreement on the issue). The attorneys are not usually involved in the actual proceedings at FMC. The goal of mediation is to develop a Parenting Plan specifying legal custody, physical custody, and visitation issues. Other issues, such as money matters, are usually not included in FMC mediation in Clark County. The parties can mutually opt for a private mediator if they wish, and are free to mediate any part of the case through such a mediator if they both desire to do so.
If mediation is impossible or fails, the case might be referred to an outside professional (therapist or psychologist) for “assessment” of the charges one or both spouses are making about the other’s treatment of the children or fitness as a parent.
Alternatively, or even after one or both of the above steps, the Court could order an evidentiary hearing on the issue of child custody and visitation. The court rules require child custody matters to be completed before the remainder of the case is decided. As of 2005, Courts are required to consider all the factors now set out in NRS 125C.0035 – Best Interest of Child; Joint Physical Custody; Preferences; Presumption When Court Determines That Parent or Person Seeking Custody Perpetrator of Domestic Violence or has Committed Act of Abduction Against Child or Any Other Child (basic custody statute).
It is possible for grandparents and other third parties to petition for rights of visitation with, or even seek custody of, children. The statutes governing such cases are linked below.
Once custody has been established, a parent seeking to move out of State with the child must seek the consent of the other parent. If that consent is denied, the custodial parent must seek and obtain a court order permitting the relocation. An attempt to move with the child, without such consent or court order, could be considered grounds for a change of custody.
It is possible for child custody litigation to be between a natural parent or parents and third parties, such as relatives who have physically cared for a child, or foster parents. Nevada has adopted the “parental preference” doctrine, which presumptively favors a natural parent, even if a “better” placement for the child or children arguably exists. The doctrine arises in initial custody contests between natural parents whose rights have not been terminated, and any third parties who seek custody of a child. It is generally inapplicable after a third party has already been granted court-approved custodial rights.
Child custody and visitation orders are never truly “final,” in that they can be modified any time until the child is emancipated. The standard of proof required to change custody depends on whether the prior order was for joint physical custody. Usually, once a fact or issue has been litigated regarding custody, and an order has been entered, that fact or issue cannot be raised in any later motion concerning child custody.
Special rules govern which State has jurisdiction to decide questions of child custody; when the parents live in different States; or the child has lived in a State for less than six months. In 2003, Nevada updated its version of the uniform law to the newer “Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act,” or “UCCJEA.” An international treaty commonly called the “Hague Convention” and a federal law called the “International Child Abduction Remedies Act” or “ICARA,” governs international cases where a child has been removed from or retained in one country to another.
Marshal Willick wrote an extended article concerning the Hague Convention and internationally abducted children, International Kidnaping Response for Fun and Profit: Getting the Kids Home and Making the Bad Guys Pay. There is also a shorter, summary introduction. We have also produced flow charts detailing the legal tests and procedural steps of Hague cases.
For much more information about child abduction cases, see Child Abduction (Kidnaping) and Recovery.
WILLICK LAW GROUP has extensive experience in the resolution of child custody matters by way of negotiation, mediation, and litigation. We take seriously our responsibility to advise our clients regarding every available option under the law, and to represent our clients in these sensitive matters while always being aware of the obligation to consider the welfare of the children involved.
Child Custody Video
Ellis v. Carucci (current case giving standard for change of custody)
Rivero v. Rivero (defining legal and physical custody and how child support varies with custody)
Truax v. Truax (standard for changing from joint to primary physical custody)
Percentage of Custodial Time in Typical Custody Schedules
Custody Flow Chart
Determining the primary caretaker
Custody and Visitation Model Clauses
AAML Model Parenting Plan
UCCJEA Affidavit (Pro Se)
Behavioral Order Template
Hague Conference on Private International Law
International Travel Consent Form
From a CLE in Nevada on Family Law Jurisdiction (Nov. 1, 2012)
- The Basics of Family Law Jurisdiction
- Initial Child Custody Jurisdiction
- Child Custody Modification Jurisdiction
- “Move cases” — Relocation Section of Nevada Family Practice Manual (NFPM)
- Relocation Cases issued after publication of NFPM
- Schwartz Factors Worksheet
- Child Custody Fast Track
- How Many Days Are in a Week and How to Measure Time (23 Nev. Fam. L. Rep., Fall, 2010) (proper application of the Rivero II Opinion)
- Model UCCJEA with Comments (1997)
- NRCP 16.2 Timeline
- Filing Fee List effective October 2013
- Required Child(ren) Related Information checklist
- Meet Me Half Way Locator This link gives a location (restaurant, hotel, business, etc.) between two zip codes for parties to meet to make child exchanges.
- How to Maximize Your Parenting Time (adapted from an article written by Richard Forrest Gould-Saltman)
- Advance Opinion Ogawa v. Ogawa (After Amicus Brief)
- Ogawa Amicus Brief
- NRS 125D – Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act
- Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (Adv. Opn. No. 49, Aug. 4, 2011) – Grandparental Visitation
- CLE on Child Custody Jurisdiction (2008)
Domestic Violence Materials
© Willick Law Group
- Cope Class Information (Bridge Palo Verde Family Consultations brochure)
- Family Mediation Center Brochures
- FMC mediation request form
- Preparing For Your Custody Evaluation
- Is Mediation For Us?
- Mediation Q&A from Fair$hare
- Joint Custody
- Parents Are Forever
- Feuding Parents – Cool it Advice
- A Relationship That Lasts Forever
- A Guide For Stepparents
Links to Other Web Sites
- NRS 125.480 – Best Interest of Child; Preferences; Considerations of Court; Presumption When Court D
- Rule 5.07 of the Family Court rules regarding mandatory COPE class
- NRS 125.500 – Award of custody to person other than a parent
- NRS 125C.050 – Petition for right of visitation for certain relatives and other persons
- NRS 125C.200 – Consent required from noncustodial parent to remove child from state; permission from
- Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, or UCCJEA
About the Author
Marshal S. Willick, Esq. is the Principal of the Willick Law Group, an A/V-rated Las Vegas family law firm, and QDROMasters, its pension order drafting division.
He can be reached at
3591 East Bonanza Rd., Ste. 200, Las Vegas, NV 89110-2198.
Phone: (702) 438-4100
Fax: (702) 438-5311
Email: [email protected]
If you have any questions about child custody and visitation in Nevada or are seeking representation, please contact us at (702) 438-4100, or by using the form below:
DISCLAIMER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP: NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP is formed by virtue of the use of the information from willicklawgroup.com or the links from willicklawgroup.com to other servers. NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP is formed without the express written agreement with WILLICK LAW GROUP, 3591 E. Bonanza Rd., Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110-2101. Sending E-mail does not constitute such an agreement.
Do not send any confidential information or specific details about a case or pending case. Confidential information needs to be submitted to your attorney only after we have a written agreement.