NRS
125C.0045 Court orders; modification or termination of orders; form for
orders; court may order parent to post bond if parent resides in or has
significant commitments in foreign country.
1. In any action for determining the
custody of a minor child, the court may, except as otherwise provided in this
section and NRS 125C.0601 to 125C.0693, inclusive, and chapter 130 of NRS:
(a) During the pendency of the action, at the
final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of the child, make
such an order for the custody, care, education, maintenance and support of the
minor child as appears in his or her best interest; and
(b) At any time modify or vacate its order, even
if custody was determined pursuant to an action for divorce and the divorce was
obtained by default without an appearance in the action by one of the parties.
Ê The party
seeking such an order shall submit to the jurisdiction of the court for the
purposes of this subsection. The court may make such an order upon the
application of one of the parties or the legal guardian of the minor.
2. Any order for joint custody may be
modified or terminated by the court upon the petition of one or both parents or
on the court’s own motion if it is shown that the best interest of the child
requires the modification or termination. The court shall state in its decision
the reasons for the order of modification or termination if either parent
opposes it.
3. Any order for custody of a minor child
entered by a court of another state may, subject to the provisions of NRS 125C.0601 to 125C.0693, inclusive, and to the
jurisdictional requirements in chapter 125A
of NRS, be modified at any time to an order of joint custody.
4. A party may proceed pursuant to this
section without counsel.
5. Any order awarding a party a limited
right of custody to a child must define that right with sufficient
particularity to ensure that the rights of the parties can be properly enforced
and that the best interest of the child is achieved. The order must include all
specific times and other terms of the limited right of custody. As used in this
subsection, “sufficient particularity” means a statement of the rights in
absolute terms and not by the use of the term “reasonable” or other similar
term which is susceptible to different interpretations by the parties.
6. All orders authorized by this section
must be made in accordance with the provisions of chapter
125A of NRS and NRS 125C.0601 to 125C.0693, inclusive, and must contain
the following language:
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF ORDER:
THE ABDUCTION, CONCEALMENT OR DETENTION OF A CHILD IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER
IS PUNISHABLE AS A CATEGORY D FELONY AS PROVIDED IN NRS 193.130. NRS 200.359 provides that every person
having a limited right of custody to a child or any parent having no right of
custody to the child who willfully detains, conceals or removes the child from
a parent, guardian or other person having lawful custody or a right of
visitation of the child in violation of an order of this court, or removes the
child from the jurisdiction of the court without the consent of either the
court or all persons who have the right to custody or visitation is subject to
being punished for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
7. In addition to the language required
pursuant to subsection 6, all orders authorized by this section must specify
that the terms of the Hague Convention of October 25, 1980, adopted by the 14th
Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, apply if a parent
abducts or wrongfully retains a child in a foreign country.
8. If a parent of the child lives in a
foreign country or has significant commitments in a foreign country:
(a) The parties may agree, and the court shall
include in the order for custody of the child, that the United States is the
country of habitual residence of the child for the purposes of applying the
terms of the Hague Convention as set forth in subsection 7.
(b) Upon motion of one of the parties, the court
may order the parent to post a bond if the court determines that the parent
poses an imminent risk of wrongfully removing or concealing the child outside
the country of habitual residence. The bond must be in an amount determined by
the court and may be used only to pay for the cost of locating the child and
returning the child to his or her habitual residence if the child is wrongfully
removed from or concealed outside the country of habitual residence. The fact
that a parent has significant commitments in a foreign country does not create
a presumption that the parent poses an imminent risk of wrongfully removing or
concealing the child.
9. Except where a contract providing
otherwise has been executed pursuant to NRS
123.080, the obligation for care, education, maintenance and support of any
minor child created by any order entered pursuant to this section ceases:
(a) Upon the death of the person to whom the
order was directed; or
(b) When the child reaches 18 years of age if the
child is no longer enrolled in high school, otherwise, when the child reaches
19 years of age.
10. As used in this section, a parent has
“significant commitments in a foreign country” if the parent:
(a) Is a citizen of a foreign country;
(b) Possesses a passport in his or her name from
a foreign country;
(c) Became a citizen of the United States after
marrying the other parent of the child; or
(d) Frequently travels to a foreign country.
(Added to NRS by 2015,
2586)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case:
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0045(1) This includ.es the discretion to deny a motion to modify custody without hol.”
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 3× “"); NRS 125C.0045(1) (providing that the district court may "[a]t any time modify or vacate [a custody order]"); see also Ellis, 123 Nev.”
Arcella Vs. Arcella (child Custody), 2017 NV 104 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 4× “3d 213,221-22 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NRS 125C.0045(1)(a) (authorizing courts to make orders regarding a child's education "as appears in his or her best interest").”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 4× “3d 1044, 1048 (2015); see also NRS 125C.0045(2). Nor does our caselaw support Lyudmyla's position This court has only once addressed the proper remedy in a civil action when a litigant attempts to use illegally acquired evidence to gain a litigation advantage.”
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Nevada statutory law does not require families to petition the district court for minor schedule changes, see generally NRS 125C.0045(1)(b), and we will not either.”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 3× “See NRS 125C.0045(1). This includes the discretion to deny a motion to modify custody without holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Arcella Vs. Arcella (child Custody), 2017 NV 104 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “3d 213,221-22 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NRS 125C.0045(1)(a) (authorizing courts to make orders regarding a child's education "as appears in his or her best interest").”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “3d 1044 , 1048 (2015); see also NRS 125C.0045(2). Nor does our caselaw support Lyudmyla's position This court has only once addressed the proper remedy in a civil action when a litigant attempts to use illegally acquired evidence to gain a litigation advantage.”
Reed v. Reed (Child Custody) (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “See NRS 125C.0045(1). Because both interpretations are reasonable, the district court properly found the language ambiguous.”
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016).
“Nevada statutory law does not require families to petition the district court for minor schedule changes, see generally NRS 125C.0045(1)(b), and we will not either.”
Boes Vs. Boes (Child Custody) (Nev. 2019).
“NRS 125C.0045(1). We conclude that the restrictive provision in the June 2018 parenting agreement violates public policy and is therefore unenforceable.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0045(1) — 6 cases
Myers v. Haskins, 513 P.3d 527 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0045(1) This includ.es the discretion to deny a motion to modify custody without hol.”
Rosie M. v. Ignacio A., 2022 NV 49 (Nev. 2022).
“"); NRS 125C.0045(1) (providing that the district court may "[a]t any time modify or vacate [a custody order]"); see also Ellis, 123 Nev.”
Myers v. Haskins (child Custody), 2022 NV 51 (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0045(1). This includes the discretion to deny a motion to modify custody without holding an evidentiary hearing.”
Reed v. Reed (Child Custody) (Nev. 2022).
“See NRS 125C.0045(1). Because both interpretations are reasonable, the district court properly found the language ambiguous.”
Boes Vs. Boes (Child Custody) (Nev. 2019).
“NRS 125C.0045(1). We conclude that the restrictive provision in the June 2018 parenting agreement violates public policy and is therefore unenforceable.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0045(1)(a) — 2 cases
Arcella Vs. Arcella (child Custody), 2017 NV 104 (Nev. 2017).
“3d 213,221-22 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NRS 125C.0045(1)(a) (authorizing courts to make orders regarding a child's education "as appears in his or her best interest").”
Arcella Vs. Arcella (child Custody), 2017 NV 104 (Nev. 2017).
“3d 213,221-22 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NRS 125C.0045(1)(a) (authorizing courts to make orders regarding a child's education "as appears in his or her best interest").”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0045(1)(b) — 2 cases
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016).
“Nevada statutory law does not require families to petition the district court for minor schedule changes, see generally NRS 125C.0045(1)(b), and we will not either.”
Harrison Vs. Harrison (child Custody), 2016 NV 56 (Nev. 2016).
“Nevada statutory law does not require families to petition the district court for minor schedule changes, see generally NRS 125C.0045(1)(b), and we will not either.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0045(2) — 4 cases
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
“3d 1044, 1048 (2015); see also NRS 125C.0045(2). Nor does our caselaw support Lyudmyla's position This court has only once addressed the proper remedy in a civil action when a litigant attempts to use illegally acquired evidence to gain a litigation advantage.”
Arcella Vs. Arcella (child Custody), 2017 NV 104 (Nev. 2017).
“3d 213,221-22 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NRS 125C.0045(1)(a) (authorizing courts to make orders regarding a child's education "as appears in his or her best interest").”
Abid Vs. Abid (child Custody), 2017 NV 94 (Nev. 2017).
“3d 1044 , 1048 (2015); see also NRS 125C.0045(2). Nor does our caselaw support Lyudmyla's position This court has only once addressed the proper remedy in a civil action when a litigant attempts to use illegally acquired evidence to gain a litigation advantage.”
Arcella Vs. Arcella (child Custody), 2017 NV 104 (Nev. 2017).
“3d 213,221-22 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also NRS 125C.0045(1)(a) (authorizing courts to make orders regarding a child's education "as appears in his or her best interest").”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0045(9)(b) — 1 case
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.