NRS
125C.0035 Best interests of child: Joint physical custody; preferences;
presumptions when court determines parent or person seeking custody is
perpetrator of domestic violence or has committed act of abduction against
child or any other child.
1. In any action for determining physical
custody of a minor child, the sole consideration of the court is the best
interest of the child. If it appears to the court that joint physical custody
would be in the best interest of the child, the court may grant physical
custody to the parties jointly.
2. Preference must not be given to either
parent for the sole reason that the parent is the mother or the father of the
child.
3. The court shall award physical custody
in the following order of preference unless in a particular case the best
interest of the child requires otherwise:
(a) To both parents jointly pursuant to NRS 125C.0025 or to either parent
pursuant to NRS 125C.003. If the court
does not enter an order awarding joint physical custody of a child after either
parent has applied for joint physical custody, the court shall state in its
decision the reason for its denial of the parent’s application.
(b) To a person or persons in whose home the
child has been living and where the child has had a wholesome and stable
environment.
(c) To any person related within the fifth degree
of consanguinity to the child whom the court finds suitable and able to provide
proper care and guidance for the child, regardless of whether the relative
resides within this State.
(d) To any other person or persons whom the court
finds suitable and able to provide proper care and guidance for the child.
4. In determining the best interest of the
child, the court shall consider and set forth its specific findings concerning,
among other things:
(a) The wishes of the child if the child is of
sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to his or her
physical custody.
(b) Any nomination of a guardian for the child by
a parent.
(c) Which parent is more likely to allow the
child to have frequent associations and a continuing relationship with the
noncustodial parent.
(d) The level of conflict between the parents.
(e) The ability of the parents to cooperate to
meet the needs of the child.
(f) The mental and physical health of the
parents.
(g) The physical, developmental and emotional
needs of the child.
(h) The nature of the relationship of the child
with each parent.
(i) The ability of the child to maintain a
relationship with any sibling.
(j) Any history of parental abuse or neglect of
the child or a sibling of the child.
(k) Whether either parent or any other person
seeking physical custody has engaged in an act of domestic violence against the
child, a parent of the child or any other person residing with the child.
(l) Whether either parent or any other person
seeking physical custody has committed any act of abduction against the child
or any other child.
5. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 6 or NRS 125C.210, a
determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing and finding by clear
and convincing evidence that either parent or any other person seeking physical
custody 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 creates a
rebuttable presumption that sole or joint physical custody of the child by the
perpetrator of the domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child.
Upon making such a determination, the court shall set forth:
(a) Findings of fact that support the
determination that one or more acts of domestic violence occurred; and
(b) Findings that the custody or visitation
arrangement ordered by the court adequately protects the child and the parent
or other victim of domestic violence who resided with the child.
6. If after an evidentiary hearing held
pursuant to subsection 5 the court determines that each party has engaged in
acts of domestic violence, it shall, if possible, then determine which person
was the primary physical aggressor. In determining which party was the primary
physical aggressor for the purposes of this section, the court shall consider:
(a) All prior acts of domestic violence involving
either party;
(b) The relative severity of the injuries, if
any, inflicted upon the persons involved in those prior acts of domestic
violence;
(c) The likelihood of future injury;
(d) Whether, during the prior acts, one of the
parties acted in self-defense; and
(e) Any other factors which the court deems
relevant to the determination.
Ê In such a
case, if it is not possible for the court to determine which party is the
primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to subsection 5
applies to both parties. If it is possible for the court to determine which party
is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to
subsection 5 applies only to the party determined by the court to be the
primary physical aggressor.
7. A determination by the court after an
evidentiary hearing and finding by clear and convincing evidence that either
parent or any other person seeking physical custody has committed any act of
abduction against the child or any other child creates a rebuttable presumption
that sole or joint physical custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by
the perpetrator of the abduction is not in the best interest of the child. If
the parent or other person seeking physical custody does not rebut the presumption,
the court shall not enter an order for sole or joint physical custody or
unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator and the court shall set
forth:
(a) Findings of fact that support the
determination that one or more acts of abduction occurred; and
(b) Findings that the custody or visitation
arrangement ordered by the court adequately protects the child and the parent
or other person from whom the child was abducted.
8. For the purposes of subsection 7, any
of the following acts constitute conclusive evidence that an act of abduction
occurred:
(a) A conviction of the defendant of any
violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction
that prohibits the same or similar conduct;
(b) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the
defendant to any violation of NRS 200.310
to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction
that prohibits the same or similar conduct; or
(c) An admission by the defendant to the court of
the facts contained in the charging document alleging a violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction
that prohibits the same or similar conduct.
9. If, after a court enters a final order
concerning physical custody of the child, a magistrate determines there is
probable cause to believe that an act of abduction has been committed against
the child or any other child and that a person who has been awarded sole or
joint physical custody or unsupervised visitation of the child has committed
the act, the court shall, upon a motion to modify the order concerning physical
custody, reconsider the previous order concerning physical custody pursuant to
subsections 7 and 8.
10. As used in this section:
(a) “Abduction” means the commission of an act
described in NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction
that prohibits the same or similar conduct.
(b) “Domestic violence” means the commission of
any act described in NRS 33.018.
(Added to NRS by 2015,
2583)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
56
cases (
23 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case:
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
· cites it 18× “Even so, the existence of sole physical custody as a parenting time arrangement is acknowledged in NRS 125C.0035. NRS 125C.0035(5) (explaining that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates the presumption that "sole or joint physical custody" by the perpetrator…”
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 7× “007(1)(b) and "best interest" when referring to the NRS 125C.0035(4) custody factors to reflect the exact language chosen by the Legislature for each statute.”
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 10× “In the custody decree, the district court expressly considered the best interest factors set forth at NRS 125C.0035(4), finding that the majority of the nonneutral factors favored Ferguson, including, notably: his ability to provide E.”
Amaya v. Guerrero Rivera, 444 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2019).
· cites it 2× “0035(4)(j) (determining if a parent has abused or neglected a child); NRS 125C.0035(4) (setting forth considerations in evaluating a child's best interest).”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 2× “480(4) has been repealed and replaced by NRS 125C.0035(4), which lists the same 12 best interest factors enumerated in NRS 125.”
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 5× “See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 14× “007(1)(b) and "best interest" when referring to the NRS 125C.0035(4) custody factors to reflect the exact language chosen by the Legislature for each statute.”
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 9× “0035(3)(a) (providing that an award of physical custody• to both parents is preferred); see also NRS 125C.0035(1) ("In any action for determining physical custody of a minor child, the sole consideration of the court is the best interest of the child.”
Shahrokhi v. Burrow C/W 82245 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 18× “First, Ali's constitutional challenge to NRS 125C.0035 fails because he and Kizzy have equal fundamental rights to care for their child, leaving the best interest of the child as the sole consideration to decide custody.”
Shahrokhi v. Burrow (Child Custody) (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 18× “First, Ali's constitutional challenge to NRS 125C.0035 fails because he and Kizzy have equal fundamental rights to care for their child, leaving the best interest of the child as the sole consideration to decide custody.”
Phillips v. Phillips (Child Custody) (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 18× “130(2) (providing that a judicially-noticed fact must be "[c]apable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"); NRS 125C.0035 (listing factors to consider in child custody determinations, including "the level of…”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 17× “See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(1) — 9 cases
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
“0035(3)(a) (providing that an award of physical custody• to both parents is preferred); see also NRS 125C.0035(1) ("In any action for determining physical custody of a minor child, the sole consideration of the court is the best interest of the child.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(1)(b) — 2 cases
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(3) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(3)(a) — 2 cases
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
“0035(3)(a) (providing that an award of physical custody• to both parents is preferred); see also NRS 125C.0035(1) ("In any action for determining physical custody of a minor child, the sole consideration of the court is the best interest of the child.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(3)(b) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4) — 28 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
“007(1)(b) and "best interest" when referring to the NRS 125C.0035(4) custody factors to reflect the exact language chosen by the Legislature for each statute.”
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“Even so, the existence of sole physical custody as a parenting time arrangement is acknowledged in NRS 125C.0035. NRS 125C.0035(5) (explaining that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates the presumption that "sole or joint physical custody" by the perpetrator…”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022).
“007(1)(b) and "best interest" when referring to the NRS 125C.0035(4) custody factors to reflect the exact language chosen by the Legislature for each statute.”
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
“In the custody decree, the district court expressly considered the best interest factors set forth at NRS 125C.0035(4), finding that the majority of the nonneutral factors favored Ferguson, including, notably: his ability to provide E.”
Amaya v. Guerrero Rivera, 444 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2019).
“0035(4)(j) (determining if a parent has abused or neglected a child); NRS 125C.0035(4) (setting forth considerations in evaluating a child's best interest).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(a) — 6 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“Even so, the existence of sole physical custody as a parenting time arrangement is acknowledged in NRS 125C.0035. NRS 125C.0035(5) (explaining that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates the presumption that "sole or joint physical custody" by the perpetrator…”
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
“007(1)(b) and "best interest" when referring to the NRS 125C.0035(4) custody factors to reflect the exact language chosen by the Legislature for each statute.”
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022).
“007(1)(b) and "best interest" when referring to the NRS 125C.0035(4) custody factors to reflect the exact language chosen by the Legislature for each statute.”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(c) — 2 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“Even so, the existence of sole physical custody as a parenting time arrangement is acknowledged in NRS 125C.0035. NRS 125C.0035(5) (explaining that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates the presumption that "sole or joint physical custody" by the perpetrator…”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(e) — 1 case
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(f) — 1 case
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(g) — 3 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“Even so, the existence of sole physical custody as a parenting time arrangement is acknowledged in NRS 125C.0035. NRS 125C.0035(5) (explaining that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates the presumption that "sole or joint physical custody" by the perpetrator…”
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(i) — 4 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“Even so, the existence of sole physical custody as a parenting time arrangement is acknowledged in NRS 125C.0035. NRS 125C.0035(5) (explaining that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates the presumption that "sole or joint physical custody" by the perpetrator…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(j) — 2 cases
Amaya v. Guerrero Rivera, 444 P.3d 450 (Nev. 2019).
“0035(4)(j) (determining if a parent has abused or neglected a child); NRS 125C.0035(4) (setting forth considerations in evaluating a child's best interest).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(4)(k) — 6 cases
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
“In the custody decree, the district court expressly considered the best interest factors set forth at NRS 125C.0035(4), finding that the majority of the nonneutral factors favored Ferguson, including, notably: his ability to provide E.”
Shahrokhi v. Burrow C/W 82245 (Nev. 2022).
“First, Ali's constitutional challenge to NRS 125C.0035 fails because he and Kizzy have equal fundamental rights to care for their child, leaving the best interest of the child as the sole consideration to decide custody.”
Shahrokhi v. Burrow (Child Custody) (Nev. 2022).
“First, Ali's constitutional challenge to NRS 125C.0035 fails because he and Kizzy have equal fundamental rights to care for their child, leaving the best interest of the child as the sole consideration to decide custody.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0035(5) — 15 cases
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
“In the custody decree, the district court expressly considered the best interest factors set forth at NRS 125C.0035(4), finding that the majority of the nonneutral factors favored Ferguson, including, notably: his ability to provide E.”
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023).
“Even so, the existence of sole physical custody as a parenting time arrangement is acknowledged in NRS 125C.0035. NRS 125C.0035(5) (explaining that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates the presumption that "sole or joint physical custody" by the perpetrator…”
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
“007(1)(b) and "best interest" when referring to the NRS 125C.0035(4) custody factors to reflect the exact language chosen by the Legislature for each statute.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018).
“480(4) has been repealed and replaced by NRS 125C.0035(4), which lists the same 12 best interest factors enumerated in NRS 125.”
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0035('l)(c), (di, (e) (collectively; the custody best interest factors related to which parent is more likely to allow the child to have .”
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.