Nevada separates home-state jurisdiction from whether Canada is the better custody forum

The Nevada Supreme Court held in Gill v. Gill that Nevada had home-state jurisdiction over a custody claim after accounting for the child’s temporary absence in Canada. It reversed a district court’s denial of custody and support relief for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for consideration of whether Nevada should nevertheless defer to the Canadian court.

The mother and child initially traveled from Nevada to Canada for a funeral. The opinion explains that the absence remained temporary until November 2023. When the father filed his Nevada divorce and custody proceeding in May 2024, less than six months had passed since the child’s departure for jurisdictional purposes. The court calculated that period from the Nevada filing, rather than the mother’s earlier Canadian custody filing.

A separate Hague Convention return proceeding in Canada had already determined that Canada was the child’s habitual residence. The Nevada court distinguished that determination from home-state jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, while giving it substantial relevance to whether Nevada should decline to exercise its jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum.

The court declined to settle the forum question itself. The Canadian court had not yet decided its own custody jurisdiction, the Nevada court had not attempted inter-court communication, and the parties needed an opportunity to brief the forum issue. On remand, the district court was instructed to attempt contact with the Canadian court and conduct the statutory appropriate-forum analysis.

The custody and child-support claims were to remain together while that decision was pending. The opinion does not award custody, set a support amount or finally select Canada as the forum.