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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007 (2026)

Petition for permission to relocate; factors to be weighed by court

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 125C.007  Petition for permission to relocate; factors to be weighed by court.

      1.  In every instance of a petition for permission to relocate with a child that is filed pursuant to NRS 125C.006 or 125C.0065, the relocating parent must demonstrate to the court that:

      (a) There exists a sensible, good-faith reason for the move, and the move is not intended to deprive the non-relocating parent of his or her parenting time;

      (b) The best interests of the child are served by allowing the relocating parent to relocate with the child; and

      (c) The child and the relocating parent will benefit from an actual advantage as a result of the relocation.

      2.  If a relocating parent demonstrates to the court the provisions set forth in subsection 1, the court must then weigh the following factors and the impact of each on the child, the relocating parent and the non-relocating parent, including, without limitation, the extent to which the compelling interests of the child, the relocating parent and the non-relocating parent are accommodated:

      (a) The extent to which the relocation is likely to improve the quality of life for the child and the relocating parent;

      (b) Whether the motives of the relocating parent are honorable and not designed to frustrate or defeat any visitation rights accorded to the non-relocating parent;

      (c) Whether the relocating parent will comply with any substitute visitation orders issued by the court if permission to relocate is granted;

      (d) Whether the motives of the non-relocating parent are honorable in resisting the petition for permission to relocate or to what extent any opposition to the petition for permission to relocate is intended to secure a financial advantage in the form of ongoing support obligations or otherwise;

      (e) Whether there will be a realistic opportunity for the non-relocating parent to maintain a visitation schedule that will adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship between the child and the non-relocating parent if permission to relocate is granted; and

      (f) Any other factor necessary to assist the court in determining whether to grant permission to relocate.

      3.  A parent who desires to relocate with a child pursuant to NRS 125C.006 or 125C.0065 has the burden of proving that relocating with the child is in the best interest of the child.

      (Added to NRS by 2015, 2588)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2018–2025 · leading case: Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 62× “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Pelkola Vs. Pelkola (child Custody), 2021 NV 24 (Nev. 2021). · cites it 38× “He argues that, therefore, the district court abused its discretion by failing to 2 issue the findings that NRS 125C.007 requires for a petition under NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 124× “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “In the district court, the parties addressed the propriety of allowing Christopher to relocate the child under Nevada's relocation scheme as it existed prior to the enacting of NRS 125C.007 (governing petitions for relocation and setting forth factors for consideration in…”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 19× “0065 applies, we recognize that de facto custody status may still be relevant to the court's overall relocation decision under NRS 125C.007. For instance, the petitioner must still demonstrate that the best interests of the child will be served by relocation, see NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). · cites it 22× “§ ‘Although we conclude that it is generally unnecessary to consider de facte custody status when determining whether NRS 125C.006 or NRS 125C.”
Inboden v. Ayon (Child Custody) (Nev. 2018). · cites it 8× “More specifically, he asserts that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider whether "Mlle best interests of the child are served by allowing the relocating parent to relocate with the child.”
Egosi Vs. Egosi (Child Custody) (Nev. 2020). · cites it 5× “Here, the district court applied NRS 125C.007 in its determination of whether to grant appellant's relocation petition.”
Shahrokhi v. Burrow (Child Custody) (Nev. 2022). · cites it 4× “We disagree that the district court's stipulated order granting Kizzy temporary sole physical custody constituted an order awarding physical custody such that the district court had to apply the NRS 125C.007 relocation factors instead.8 See Druckman, 130 Nev.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “" Bluestein, 1-°In the district court, the parties addressed the propriety of allowing Christopher to relocate the child under Nevada's relocation scheme as it existed prior to the enacting of NRS 125C.007 (governing petitions for relocation and setting forth factors for…”
Nance Vs. Ferraro (child Custody), 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “" Bluestein, 1-°In the district court, the parties addressed the propriety of allowing Christopher to relocate the child under Nevada's relocation scheme as it existed prior to the enacting of NRS 125C.007 (governing petitions for relocation and setting forth factors for…”
Nance Vs. Ferraro (child Custody), 2018 NV 21 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 3× “" Bluestein, 1-°In the district court, the parties addressed the propriety of allowing Christopher to relocate the child under Nevada's relocation scheme as it existed prior to the enacting of NRS 125C.007 (governing petitions for relocation and setting forth factors for…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(1) — 9 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Pelkola Vs. Pelkola (child Custody), 2021 NV 24 (Nev. 2021). “He argues that, therefore, the district court abused its discretion by failing to 2 issue the findings that NRS 125C.007 requires for a petition under NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “0065 applies, we recognize that de facto custody status may still be relevant to the court's overall relocation decision under NRS 125C.007. For instance, the petitioner must still demonstrate that the best interests of the child will be served by relocation, see NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “§ ‘Although we conclude that it is generally unnecessary to consider de facte custody status when determining whether NRS 125C.006 or NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(1)(a) — 3 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Egosi Vs. Egosi (Child Custody) (Nev. 2020). “Here, the district court applied NRS 125C.007 in its determination of whether to grant appellant's relocation petition.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(1)(b) — 10 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Nance v. Ferraro, 418 P.3d 679 (Nev. 2018). “In the district court, the parties addressed the propriety of allowing Christopher to relocate the child under Nevada's relocation scheme as it existed prior to the enacting of NRS 125C.007 (governing petitions for relocation and setting forth factors for consideration in…”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “0065 applies, we recognize that de facto custody status may still be relevant to the court's overall relocation decision under NRS 125C.007. For instance, the petitioner must still demonstrate that the best interests of the child will be served by relocation, see NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “§ ‘Although we conclude that it is generally unnecessary to consider de facte custody status when determining whether NRS 125C.006 or NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(1)(c) — 2 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(1Xb) — 2 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(2) — 6 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Pelkola Vs. Pelkola (child Custody), 2021 NV 24 (Nev. 2021). “He argues that, therefore, the district court abused its discretion by failing to 2 issue the findings that NRS 125C.007 requires for a petition under NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “§ ‘Although we conclude that it is generally unnecessary to consider de facte custody status when determining whether NRS 125C.006 or NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “0065 applies, we recognize that de facto custody status may still be relevant to the court's overall relocation decision under NRS 125C.007. For instance, the petitioner must still demonstrate that the best interests of the child will be served by relocation, see NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(2)(e) — 1 case
Pelkola Vs. Pelkola (child Custody), 2021 NV 24 (Nev. 2021). “He argues that, therefore, the district court abused its discretion by failing to 2 issue the findings that NRS 125C.007 requires for a petition under NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(2)(f) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “0065 applies, we recognize that de facto custody status may still be relevant to the court's overall relocation decision under NRS 125C.007. For instance, the petitioner must still demonstrate that the best interests of the child will be served by relocation, see NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “§ ‘Although we conclude that it is generally unnecessary to consider de facte custody status when determining whether NRS 125C.006 or NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(3) — 4 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “NRS 125C.007 does not define "best interests of the chile; it does not specify the burden of proof necessary to satisfy NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “0065 applies, we recognize that de facto custody status may still be relevant to the court's overall relocation decision under NRS 125C.007. For instance, the petitioner must still demonstrate that the best interests of the child will be served by relocation, see NRS 125C.”
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “§ ‘Although we conclude that it is generally unnecessary to consider de facte custody status when determining whether NRS 125C.006 or NRS 125C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.007(8) — 1 case
Johnson v. Bennett (child Custody), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 35 (Nev. 2025). “§ ‘Although we conclude that it is generally unnecessary to consider de facte custody status when determining whether NRS 125C.006 or NRS 125C.”
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.