NRS
125C.0065 Consent required from non-relocating parent to relocate child
when joint physical custody established; petition for primary physical custody;
attorney’s fees and costs.
1. If joint physical custody has been
established pursuant to an order, judgment or decree of a court and one parent
intends to relocate his or her residence to a place outside of this State or to
a place within this State that is at such a distance that would substantially
impair the ability of the other parent to maintain a meaningful relationship
with the child, and the relocating parent desires to take the child with him or
her, the relocating parent shall, before relocating:
(a) Attempt to obtain the written consent of the
non-relocating parent to relocate with the child; and
(b) If the non-relocating parent refuses to give
that consent, petition the court for primary physical custody for the purpose
of relocating.
2. The court may award reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs to the relocating parent if the court finds that the
non-relocating parent refused to consent to the relocating parent’s relocation
with the child:
(a) Without having reasonable grounds for such
refusal; or
(b) For the purpose of harassing the relocating
parent.
3. A parent who relocates with a child
pursuant to this section before the court enters an order granting the parent
primary physical custody of the child and permission to relocate with the child
is subject to the provisions of NRS 200.359.
(Added to NRS by 2015,
2588)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 2018–2025 · leading case:
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 5× “006, which does not require a custody determination, unlike NRS 125C.0065, which 3Citing Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 10× “006, which does not require a custody determination, unlike NRS 125C.0065, which 3Citing Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018).
“006, NRS 125C.0065, or NRS 125C.007. Nonetheless, even under the new relocation statute, a party seeking to relocate a child must show that relocation is in the child's best interest .”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 10× “3d 980 (2022), requires a district court to ascertain the "true nature" of the parties' custodial arrangement in determining whether a party to a custody agreement who seeks to relocate with a child must petition the court for primary physical custody pursuant to NRS 125C.0065.…”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 11× “We also clarify the relocating parent’s applicable burden of proof under NRS 125C,007(38) and emphasize that this burden remains at all times with the relocating parent, even when the nonrelocating parent countermoves for primary physical custody. Dicta in Rivero suggests that…”
Inboden v. Ayon (Child Custody) (Nev. 2018).
“006 (primary physical custody); NRS 125C.0065 (joint physical custody). In this case, no such custody order exists and.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.0065(1) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025).
“3d 980 (2022), requires a district court to ascertain the "true nature" of the parties' custodial arrangement in determining whether a party to a custody agreement who seeks to relocate with a child must petition the court for primary physical custody pursuant to NRS 125C.0065.…”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025).
“We also clarify the relocating parent’s applicable burden of proof under NRS 125C,007(38) and emphasize that this burden remains at all times with the relocating parent, even when the nonrelocating parent countermoves for primary physical custody. Dicta in Rivero suggests that…”
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.