NRS
125B.145 Review and modification of order for support: Request for
review; jurisdiction; notification of right to request review.
1. An order for the support of a child
must, upon the filing of a request for review by:
(a) The Division of Social Services of the
Department of Human Services, its designated representative or the district
attorney, if the Division of Social Services or the district attorney has
jurisdiction in the case; or
(b) A parent or legal guardian of the child,
Ê be reviewed
by the court at least every 3 years pursuant to this section to determine
whether the order should be modified or adjusted. Each review conducted
pursuant to this section must be in response to a separate request.
2. If the court:
(a) Does not have jurisdiction to modify the
order, the court may forward the request to any court with appropriate
jurisdiction.
(b) Has jurisdiction to modify the order and,
taking into account the best interests of the child, determines that
modification or adjustment of the order is appropriate, the court shall enter
an order modifying or adjusting the previous order for support in accordance
with the guidelines established by the Administrator of the Division of Social
Services of the Department of Human Services pursuant to NRS 425.620.
3. The court shall ensure that:
(a) Each person who is subject to an order for
the support of a child is notified, not less than once every 3 years, that the
person may request a review of the order pursuant to this section; or
(b) An order for the support of a child includes
notification that each person who is subject to the order may request a review
of the order pursuant to this section.
4. An order for the support of a child may
be reviewed at any time on the basis of changed circumstances. For the purposes
of this subsection, a change of 20 percent or more in the gross monthly income
of a person who is subject to an order for the support of a child shall be
deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring a review for modification
of the order for the support of a child.
5. As used in this section:
(a) “Gross monthly income” has the meaning
ascribed to it in NRS 125.150.
(b) “Order for the support of a child” means such
an order that was issued or is being enforced by a court of this State.
(Added to NRS by 1989,
859; A 1991,
1337; 1993,
2626; 1997,
2299; 2003,
546; 2017,
2283)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case:
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 15× “NRS 125B.145. Because the term "may" is discretionary, the district court has discretion to review a support order based on changed circumstances but is not required to do so.”
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 11× “: This is an appeal by the father of minor children from an order denying a motion to modify child support under NRS 125B.145. The trial court held that it was “not bound” by NRS 125B.”
Willerton v. Bassham, 889 P.2d 823 (Nev. 1995).
· cites it 5× “[2] NRS 125B.145, part of Nevada's Obligation of Support Act, provides, in relevant part, as follows: 1.”
Jackson v. Jackson, 907 P.2d 990 (Nev. 1995).
· cites it 2× “While it is true that Kristine did seek relief under NRCP 60(b), the district court did not modify the child support award pursuant to NRCP 60(b).”
Wesley v. Foster, 65 P.3d 251 (Nev. 2003).
“On November 15, 2000, Wesley requested a three-year review and modification of child support, pursuant to NRS 125B.145(l)(b); a hearing was conducted.”
Backman v. Gelbman, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 8 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 9× “In this case, we are asked to determine which child support order is the controlling order for purposes of calculating a 20-percent change in income when an original order has been entered and the amount of child support has remained unchanged over the course of multiple denials…”
Dalaimo v. Dalaimo (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 125B.145(4) provides: An order for the support of a child may be reviewed at any time on the basis of changed circumstances.”
Robinson v. Robinson (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). To the extent Michael urges us to enlarge his rights under the district court's order, we lack jurisdiction to consider those arguments because Michael did not file a notice of cross-appeal.”
Foley v. Foley (Nev. 2018).
“080(3); NRS 125B.145(1); Rivero v. River°, 125 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.145(1) — 3 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
“NRS 125B.145. Because the term "may" is discretionary, the district court has discretion to review a support order based on changed circumstances but is not required to do so.”
Willerton v. Bassham, 889 P.2d 823 (Nev. 1995).
“[2] NRS 125B.145, part of Nevada's Obligation of Support Act, provides, in relevant part, as follows: 1.”
Foley v. Foley (Nev. 2018).
“080(3); NRS 125B.145(1); Rivero v. River°, 125 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.145(1)(b) — 1 case
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
“NRS 125B.145. Because the term "may" is discretionary, the district court has discretion to review a support order based on changed circumstances but is not required to do so.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.145(2)(b) — 3 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
“NRS 125B.145. Because the term "may" is discretionary, the district court has discretion to review a support order based on changed circumstances but is not required to do so.”
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010).
“: This is an appeal by the father of minor children from an order denying a motion to modify child support under NRS 125B.145. The trial court held that it was “not bound” by NRS 125B.”
Robinson v. Robinson (Nev. 2018).
“See NRS 125B.145(2)(b). To the extent Michael urges us to enlarge his rights under the district court's order, we lack jurisdiction to consider those arguments because Michael did not file a notice of cross-appeal.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.145(4) — 4 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
“NRS 125B.145. Because the term "may" is discretionary, the district court has discretion to review a support order based on changed circumstances but is not required to do so.”
Backman v. Gelbman, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 8 (Nev. 2025).
“In this case, we are asked to determine which child support order is the controlling order for purposes of calculating a 20-percent change in income when an original order has been entered and the amount of child support has remained unchanged over the course of multiple denials…”
Dalaimo v. Dalaimo (Nev. 2017).
“NRS 125B.145(4) provides: An order for the support of a child may be reviewed at any time on the basis of changed circumstances.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.145(7) — 1 case
Willerton v. Bassham, 889 P.2d 823 (Nev. 1995).
“[2] NRS 125B.145, part of Nevada's Obligation of Support Act, provides, in relevant part, as follows: 1.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.145(l) — 1 case
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010).
“: This is an appeal by the father of minor children from an order denying a motion to modify child support under NRS 125B.145. The trial court held that it was “not bound” by NRS 125B.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125B.145(l)(b) — 4 cases
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
“NRS 125B.145. Because the term "may" is discretionary, the district court has discretion to review a support order based on changed circumstances but is not required to do so.”
Fernandez v. Fernandez, 222 P.3d 1031 (Nev. 2010).
“: This is an appeal by the father of minor children from an order denying a motion to modify child support under NRS 125B.145. The trial court held that it was “not bound” by NRS 125B.”
Jackson v. Jackson, 907 P.2d 990 (Nev. 1995).
“While it is true that Kristine did seek relief under NRCP 60(b), the district court did not modify the child support award pursuant to NRCP 60(b).”
Wesley v. Foster, 65 P.3d 251 (Nev. 2003).
“On November 15, 2000, Wesley requested a three-year review and modification of child support, pursuant to NRS 125B.145(l)(b); a hearing was conducted.”
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.