NRS
125A.365 Inconvenient forum.
1. A court of this state which has
jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of this chapter to make a child custody
determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it
determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a
court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient
forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court’s own motion or request
of another court.
2. Before determining whether it is an
inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is
appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this
purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall
consider all relevant factors, including:
(a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is
likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties
and the child;
(b) The length of time the child has resided
outside this state;
(c) The distance between the court in this state
and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(d) The relative financial circumstances of the
parties;
(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which
state should assume jurisdiction;
(f) The nature and location of the evidence
required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(g) The ability of the court of each state to
decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the
evidence; and
(h) The familiarity of the court of each state
with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
3. If a court of this state determines
that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more
appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child
custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may
impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.
4. A court of this state may decline to
exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of this chapter if a child
custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another
proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other
proceeding.
(Added to NRS by 2003,
997)
Notes of Decisions
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 6× “305(1)(a), or "a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum pursuant to NRS 125A.365 or 125A.375," NRS 125A.305(1)(b), and the criteria established in NRS 125A.”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 10× “hysical presence; and (2) Substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships; (c) All courts having jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a…”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 5× “hysical presence; and (2) Substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships; (c) All courts having jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a…”
Adamski v. Adamska (Child Custody) (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 3× “The district court correctly considered the factors outlined in NRS 125A.365. Further, contrary to Mariusz's argument on appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its compliance with Druckman v.”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
· cites it 3× “The district court should also direct briefing from the 10 Supreme Court OF Nevapa (0) 947A a parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.365 to determine whether Nevada is the most appropriate forum to exercise jurisdiction.”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
· cites it 3× “The district court should also direct briefing from the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A 46143, parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.365 to determine whether Nevada is the most appropriate forum to exercise j urisdiction.”
J. W. v. Texas Dep't of Fam. & Prot. Servs. (Tex. App. 2019).
“See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.365 (providing that court of exclusive continuing jurisdiction “may 6 decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.365(1) — 5 cases
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011).
“305(1)(a), or "a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum pursuant to NRS 125A.365 or 125A.375," NRS 125A.305(1)(b), and the criteria established in NRS 125A.”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016).
“hysical presence; and (2) Substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships; (c) All courts having jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a…”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016).
“hysical presence; and (2) Substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships; (c) All courts having jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a…”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
“The district court should also direct briefing from the 10 Supreme Court OF Nevapa (0) 947A a parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.365 to determine whether Nevada is the most appropriate forum to exercise jurisdiction.”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
“The district court should also direct briefing from the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A 46143, parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.365 to determine whether Nevada is the most appropriate forum to exercise j urisdiction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.365(2) — 3 cases
Adamski v. Adamska (Child Custody) (Nev. 2016).
“The district court correctly considered the factors outlined in NRS 125A.365. Further, contrary to Mariusz's argument on appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its compliance with Druckman v.”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
“The district court should also direct briefing from the 10 Supreme Court OF Nevapa (0) 947A a parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.365 to determine whether Nevada is the most appropriate forum to exercise jurisdiction.”
Gill v. Gill (child Custody), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19 (Nev. 2026).
“The district court should also direct briefing from the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10 (0) 1947A 46143, parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.365 to determine whether Nevada is the most appropriate forum to exercise j urisdiction.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.365(2)(e) — 1 case
Friedman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court Ex Rel. Cnty. of Clark, 264 P.3d 1161 (Nev. 2011).
“305(1)(a), or "a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum pursuant to NRS 125A.365 or 125A.375," NRS 125A.305(1)(b), and the criteria established in NRS 125A.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.365(3) — 2 cases
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016).
“hysical presence; and (2) Substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships; (c) All courts having jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a…”
Kar Vs. Kar (child Custody), 2016 NV 63 (Nev. 2016).
“hysical presence; and (2) Substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships; (c) All courts having jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125A.365(4) — 1 case
Adamski v. Adamska (Child Custody) (Nev. 2016).
“The district court correctly considered the factors outlined in NRS 125A.365. Further, contrary to Mariusz's argument on appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its compliance with Druckman v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.