NRS
125C.003 Best interests of child: Primary physical custody; presumptions;
child born out of wedlock.
1. A court may award primary physical
custody to a parent if the court determines that joint physical custody is not
in the best interest of a child. An award of joint physical custody is presumed
not to be in the best interest of the child if:
(a) The court determines by substantial evidence
that a parent is unable to adequately care for a minor child for at least 146
days of the year;
(b) A child is born out of wedlock and the
provisions of subsection 2 are applicable; or
(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6
of NRS 125C.0035 or NRS 125C.210, there has been a
determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing and finding by clear
and convincing evidence that a parent has engaged in one or more acts of
domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child or any other person
residing with the child. The presumption created by this paragraph is a
rebuttable presumption.
2. A court may award primary physical
custody of a child born out of wedlock to:
(a) The mother of the child if:
(1) The mother has not married the father
of the child;
(2) A judgment or order of a court, or a
judgment or order entered pursuant to an expedited process, determining the
paternity of the child has not been entered; and
(3) The father of the child:
(I) Is not subject to any
presumption of paternity under NRS 126.051;
(II) Has never acknowledged
paternity pursuant to NRS 126.053; or
(III) Has had actual knowledge of
his paternity but has abandoned the child.
(b) The father of the child if:
(1) The mother has abandoned the child;
and
(2) The father has provided sole care and
custody of the child in her absence.
3. As used in this section:
(a) “Abandoned” means that a mother or father
has:
(1) Failed, for a continuous period of not
less than 6 months, to provide substantial personal and economic support to the
child; or
(2) Knowingly declined, for a continuous
period of not less than 6 months, to have any meaningful relationship with the
child.
(b) “Expedited process” has the meaning ascribed to
it in NRS 126.161.
(Added to NRS by 2015,
2582)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2018–2025 · leading case:
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
· cites it 6× “0025; NRS 125C.003; NRS 125C.0035; Rivero, 125 Nev.”
Amaya v. Guerrero Rivera, 444 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “, NRS 125C.003 (awarding physical custody of a child); NRS 125C.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “480(5) ; NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 4× “5 NRS 125C.003(1) (setting forth the rebuttable presumption); NRS 125C.”
Faulkenburg v. Faulkenburg (Child Custody) (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 4× “NRS 125C.003(1) provides that "[a] court may award primary physical custody to a parent if the court determines that joint physical custody is not in the best interest of a child.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “480(5); NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
Scheirholt v. Gangwish (Child Custody) (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Scheirholt points out that custody determinations require specific factual findings grounded in legal reasoning, and that the district court should have analyzed the factors set forth in NRS 125C.003(1) and NRS 125C.0035(4) to determine the best interests of the child.”
Nance Vs. Ferraro (child Custody), 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “480(5); NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
Ramirez v. Menjivar (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Assuming it applied the presumption, the district court failed to make certain relevant findings required under NRS 125C.003. See NRS 125C.003(1)-(2) (requiring "substantial evidence that a parent is unable to adequately care for a minor child for at least 146 days of the year,"…”
Nance Vs. Ferraro (child Custody), 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “480(5); NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
Nance v. Ferraro (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “480(5); NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.003(1) — 5 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“0025; NRS 125C.003; NRS 125C.0035; Rivero, 125 Nev.”
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
“5 NRS 125C.003(1) (setting forth the rebuttable presumption); NRS 125C.”
Scheirholt v. Gangwish (Child Custody) (Nev. 2018).
“Scheirholt points out that custody determinations require specific factual findings grounded in legal reasoning, and that the district court should have analyzed the factors set forth in NRS 125C.003(1) and NRS 125C.0035(4) to determine the best interests of the child.”
Faulkenburg v. Faulkenburg (Child Custody) (Nev. 2018).
“NRS 125C.003(1) provides that "[a] court may award primary physical custody to a parent if the court determines that joint physical custody is not in the best interest of a child.”
Ramirez v. Menjivar (Nev. 2018).
“Assuming it applied the presumption, the district court failed to make certain relevant findings required under NRS 125C.003. See NRS 125C.003(1)-(2) (requiring "substantial evidence that a parent is unable to adequately care for a minor child for at least 146 days of the year,"…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.003(1)(a) — 3 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“0025; NRS 125C.003; NRS 125C.0035; Rivero, 125 Nev.”
Faulkenburg v. Faulkenburg (Child Custody) (Nev. 2018).
“NRS 125C.003(1) provides that "[a] court may award primary physical custody to a parent if the court determines that joint physical custody is not in the best interest of a child.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.003(1)(c) — 6 cases
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018).
“480(5) ; NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
“5 NRS 125C.003(1) (setting forth the rebuttable presumption); NRS 125C.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018).
“480(5); NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
Nance Vs. Ferraro (child Custody), 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018).
“480(5); NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
Nance Vs. Ferraro (child Custody), 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018).
“480(5); NRS 125C.003(1)(c). When a district court considers a motion to modify a prior custody order, it logically follows that the court's evaluation of whether modification is in the child's best interest will necessarily be informed by the findings and conclusions that…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.003(3) — 2 cases
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.