Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 125C - CUSTODY AND VISITATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0025 (2026)

Joint physical custody

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 125C.0025  Joint physical custody.

      1.  When a court is making a determination regarding the physical custody of a child, there is a preference that joint physical custody would be in the best interest of a minor child if:

      (a) The parents have agreed to an award of joint physical custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the physical custody of the minor child; or

      (b) A parent has demonstrated, or has attempted to demonstrate but has had his or her efforts frustrated by the other parent, an intent to establish a meaningful relationship with the minor child.

      2.  For assistance in determining whether an award of joint physical custody is appropriate, the court may direct that an investigation be conducted.

      (Added to NRS by 2015, 2582)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2023 · leading case: Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). · cites it 6× “, NRS 125C.0025; NRS 125C.003; NRS 125C.0035; Rivero, 125 Nev.”
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 6× “the record facts presented and the preferences that NRS 125C.0025 and NRS 125C.0035(3)(a) establish that joint physical custody ordinarily is in the best interest of the child.”
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 3× “" NRS 125C.0025(1). Therefore, the district court must determine a minor child's custody arrangement, so the teenage discretion provision improperly intrudes on what should be the district court's sole determination.”
Martinez v. Avila, Jr. (child Custody), 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 3× “’s biological father and that Rosie and Ignacio had no custody order in place as to A.”
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016). “" NRS 125C.0025(1). Therefore, the district court must determine a minor child's custody arrangement, so the teenage discretion provision improperly intrudes on what should be the district court's sole determination.”
Martinez v. Avila, Jr. (child Custody), 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022). “0025 and NR&S 125C 003M SMa) establish that joint pliysical custody ordinarily is in the best intereat of the child.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0025(1) — 2 cases
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016). “" NRS 125C.0025(1). Therefore, the district court must determine a minor child's custody arrangement, so the teenage discretion provision improperly intrudes on what should be the district court's sole determination.”
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016). “" NRS 125C.0025(1). Therefore, the district court must determine a minor child's custody arrangement, so the teenage discretion provision improperly intrudes on what should be the district court's sole determination.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0025(1)(b) — 1 case
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). “, NRS 125C.0025; NRS 125C.003; NRS 125C.0035; Rivero, 125 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0025(2) — 1 case
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). “, NRS 125C.0025; NRS 125C.003; NRS 125C.0035; Rivero, 125 Nev.”
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.