Nevada

Statutory framework; factor structure: 12.

Authority

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

12

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

preamble

Presumptions in the original survey

Joint legal presumption (§ 125C.002) and joint physical preference (§ 125C.0025) apply when the parents agree to the respective award or a parent has demonstrated an intent to establish a meaningful relationship with the child, or attempted to do so but was frustrated by the other parent. Domestic-violence presumptions concern physical custody. After an evidentiary hearing and clear and convincing findings of domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child, or another person residing with the child, §125C.003(1)(c) creates a rebuttable presumption against joint physical custody when a parent perpetrated it; §125C.0035(5) creates a rebuttable presumption against sole or joint physical custody by the perpetrator, including another person seeking physical custody. The mutual-violence and primary-physical-aggressor rules in §125C.0035(6), and the §125C.210 exception, apply. This is not an exhaustive list of custody presumptions.

Child's voice / age rule

none

Compare best interests nationally

"Incompatibility," § 125.010(3). Also one year separate and apart without cohabitation, § 125.010(2)

Authority

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125.010

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"Incompatibility," § 125.010(3). Also one year separate and apart without cohabitation, § 125.010(2)

Other grounds and proof conditions

None (0). Insanity existing two years is a status cause, not fault

Separation

One year without cohabitation, discretionary decree. Same-roof not addressed

Timing

None. Decree is final when entered, § 125.130. Generally either party must have six weeks of Nevada residence before commencement; § 125.020(2) excepts cases where the cause accrued in the county while both parties were actually domiciled there.

Relief without dissolution

Yes, separate maintenance, § 125.190

Compare divorce grounds nationally

Statutory relocation factors. On the moving parent. No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required.

Authority

NRS 125C.006 to 125C.0075

Court test

statutory relocation factors

Burden classification

burden on the relocating parent

Notice classification

no

Trigger classification

functional (move that significantly affects the parenting arrangement)

Effect of silence

no (consent or court order required)

What the court weighs

Threshold (all three required): (a) a sensible, good-faith reason not intended to deprive the other parent of parenting time. (b) the child's best interests are served. (c) the child and the relocating parent will benefit from an actual advantage (§ 125C.007(1)). If met, the court weighs six factors (§ 125C.007(2)): quality-of-life improvement. The mover's motives. Likely compliance with substitute visitation. The objector's motives, including financial advantage. A realistic opportunity for adequate visitation. And any other factor. Monahan (2022): the threshold is proved by a preponderance, and (1)(b) requires specific best-interest findings, which should include applicable custody factors tied to the conclusion. Johnson (2025): the ultimate § 125C.007(3) burden is also a preponderance.

Who carries the burden

On the relocating parent at all times: 'the burden of proving that relocating with the child is in the best interest of the child' (§ 125C.007(3)), by a preponderance. A court must decide the relocation petition before any contingent countermotion for primary custody, to avoid shifting the burden (Johnson v. Bennett, 2025). No shift.

Notice and safety exceptions

No fixed-day notice statute. Before relocating with the child, the primary custodian (or, under joint physical custody, the relocating parent) must attempt to obtain the other parent's written consent and, if refused, petition the court before moving (§§ 125C.006(1), 125C.0065(1)).

Which moves trigger the rule

Applies where primary or joint physical custody 'has been established pursuant to an order, judgment or decree of a court' and the parent intends to relocate outside Nevada, or within Nevada at a distance that would substantially impair the other parent's ability to maintain a meaningful relationship, and wants to take the child (§§ 125C.006(1), 125C.0065(1)). Which section applies turns on the custody label in the order, not the de facto timeshare (Johnson v. Bennett, 2025). Pelkola (2021) applies § 125C.006 to a move from one out-of-state location to another.

Objections and the effect of silence

Consent must be written. On refusal, the mover petitions for permission (primary custody) or for primary physical custody for the purpose of relocating (joint custody). No objection deadline. Silence is not written consent. The court may award fees against a parent who refused consent without reasonable grounds or to harass (§§ 125C.006(2), 125C.0065(2)). Relocating without consent or permission exposes the parent to NRS 200.359 (§§ 125C.006(3), 125C.0065(3)).

The modification threshold

Not a modification standard. The relocation petition is a distinct statutory proceeding with no changed-circumstances showing. Under joint physical custody the mover must seek primary physical custody (§ 125C.0065), which effectively converts the request into a custody change.

Other qualifications

If a parent relocates unlawfully, 'the court shall not consider any post-relocation facts or circumstances' about the child's or mover's welfare, and the other parent recovers fees (§ 125C.0075). Self-help also carries criminal exposure under NRS 200.359.

Burden summary

On the moving parent

Notice summary

No separate relocation notice rule found; consent or court permission may still be required

Trigger summary

Effect on parenting arrangement

Compare parental relocation nationally