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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.010 (2026)

Order awarding visitation rights must define rights with particularity and specify habitual residence of child

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 125C.010  Order awarding visitation rights must define rights with particularity and specify habitual residence of child.

      1.  Any order awarding a party a right of visitation of a minor child must:

      (a) 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; and

      (b) Specify that the State of Nevada or the state where the child resides within the United States of America is the habitual residence of the child.

Ê The order must include all specific times and other terms of the right of visitation.

      2.  As used in this section, “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.

      (Added to NRS by 1993, 2137; A 1995, 1493, 2289)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case: Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rivero v. Rivero, 216 P.3d 213 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 2× “This focus on residency is consistent with NRS 125C.010, which requires that a court, when ordering visitation, specify the "habitual residence" of the child.”
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). · cites it 4× “" NRS 125C.010(1)(a), (2). Generally, a court's oral pronouncement from the bench is ineffective.”
Blanco v. Blanco, 311 P.3d 1170 (Nev. 2013). “See NRS 125C.010(1). The district court must also make a determination as to child support in accordance with the law, as that claim should not have been resolved by default through the mere adoption of the temporary support order.”
Davis Vs. Ewalefo (child Custody), 2015 NV 45 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 3× “510(5); NRS 125C.010(1), and they leave us in doubt whether "the district court's determination was made for appropriate reasons.”
Davis Vs. Ewalefo (child Custody), 2015 NV 45 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “510(5); NRS 125C.010(1), and they leave us in doubt whether "the district court's determination was made for appropriate reasons.”
Terry Vs. Terry (Child Custody) (Nev. 2020). “See NRS 125C.010(2) (providing that a custody order is not sufficiently particular if it uses terms that are "susceptible to different interpretations by the parties").”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.010(1) — 3 cases
Blanco v. Blanco, 311 P.3d 1170 (Nev. 2013). “See NRS 125C.010(1). The district court must also make a determination as to child support in accordance with the law, as that claim should not have been resolved by default through the mere adoption of the temporary support order.”
Davis Vs. Ewalefo (child Custody), 2015 NV 45 (Nev. 2015). “510(5); NRS 125C.010(1), and they leave us in doubt whether "the district court's determination was made for appropriate reasons.”
Davis Vs. Ewalefo (child Custody), 2015 NV 45 (Nev. 2015). “510(5); NRS 125C.010(1), and they leave us in doubt whether "the district court's determination was made for appropriate reasons.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.010(1)(a) — 3 cases
Roe v. Roe, 535 P.3d 274 (Nev. 2023). “" NRS 125C.010(1)(a), (2). Generally, a court's oral pronouncement from the bench is ineffective.”
Davis Vs. Ewalefo (child Custody), 2015 NV 45 (Nev. 2015). “510(5); NRS 125C.010(1), and they leave us in doubt whether "the district court's determination was made for appropriate reasons.”
Davis Vs. Ewalefo (child Custody), 2015 NV 45 (Nev. 2015). “510(5); NRS 125C.010(1), and they leave us in doubt whether "the district court's determination was made for appropriate reasons.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.010(2) — 1 case
Terry Vs. Terry (Child Custody) (Nev. 2020). “See NRS 125C.010(2) (providing that a custody order is not sufficiently particular if it uses terms that are "susceptible to different interpretations by the parties").”
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.