NRS
125C.230 Presumption concerning custody when court determines that parent
or other person seeking custody of child is perpetrator of domestic violence.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125C.210 and 125C.220, a determination by the court
after an evidentiary hearing and finding by clear and convincing evidence that either
parent or any other person seeking custody of a child 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 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.
2. If after an evidentiary hearing held
pursuant to subsection 1 the court determines that more than one party has
engaged in acts of domestic violence, it shall, if possible, 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
any of the parties;
(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 that 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 1
applies to each of the parties. If it is possible for the court to determine
which party is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant
to subsection 1 applies only to the party determined by the court to be the
primary physical aggressor.
(Added to NRS by 1999,
742)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case:
Castle v. Simmons, 86 P.3d 1042 (Nev. 2004).
Castle v. Simmons, 86 P.3d 1042 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 6× “With respect to the second prong of Murphy, whether “the child’s welfare would be substantially enhanced by [a custody] change,” the rebuttable presumption set forth in NRS 125C.230 subsumes this inquiry. The statute requires that the court presume that the child’s best…”
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
“003(1)(c) (same); NRS 125C.230(1) (same). Soldo-Allesio contends that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard should apply when the district court considers domestic violence as a best interest factor.”
Caruso v. Maize (Child Custody) (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 7× “domestic violence conviction but reasoned that NRS 125C.230's presumption against placing a child in the custody of a parent who committed domestic violence was not sufficiently persuasive to preclude an award of custody to Maize.”
Phillips v. Phillips (Child Custody) (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 3× “93, 99 (1997) (holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause "protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense"); see also NRS 125C.230 (placing no time limit on the district court's consideration of domestic violence issues relevant to its…”
Amezcua v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 2014 NV 7 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 4× “157 and NRS 125C.230 create a rebuttable presumption that he, as a perpetrator of domestic violence, is unfit for sole or joint custody of his children; (2) he could lose the right to possess a firearm under 18 U.”
Arreguini v. Arreguini (Child Custody) (Nev. 2013).
“2d 1258, 1261 (1996); but see NRS 125C.230(1) (providing that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that custody with the perpetrator is not in the child's best interest).”
Horan v. Arreguini (Child Custody) (Nev. 2013).
“2d 1258, 1261 (1996); but see NRS 125C.230(1) (providing that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that custody with the perpetrator is not in the child's best interest).”
in Re: Parental Rights as to Bida (Nev. 2013).
“Appellant contends that his case plan was unworkable and unattainable because he could not have custody in light of the domestic violence issues under NRS 125C.230 and NRS 432B.157, which set forth rebuttable presumptions that it is not in a child's best interest to be in the…”
Lambey (Luanie) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2013).
“157 and NRS 125C.230 create a rebuttable presumption that the perpetrator of domestic violence is unfit for sole or joint custody of his children; (2) he could lose the right to possess a firearm under 18 U.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.230(1) — 6 cases
Castle v. Simmons, 86 P.3d 1042 (Nev. 2004).
“With respect to the second prong of Murphy, whether “the child’s welfare would be substantially enhanced by [a custody] change,” the rebuttable presumption set forth in NRS 125C.230 subsumes this inquiry. The statute requires that the court presume that the child’s best…”
Soldo-allesio v. Ferguson, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 9 (Nev. 2025).
“003(1)(c) (same); NRS 125C.230(1) (same). Soldo-Allesio contends that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard should apply when the district court considers domestic violence as a best interest factor.”
Caruso v. Maize (Child Custody) (Nev. 2015).
“domestic violence conviction but reasoned that NRS 125C.230's presumption against placing a child in the custody of a parent who committed domestic violence was not sufficiently persuasive to preclude an award of custody to Maize.”
Arreguini v. Arreguini (Child Custody) (Nev. 2013).
“2d 1258, 1261 (1996); but see NRS 125C.230(1) (providing that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that custody with the perpetrator is not in the child's best interest).”
Horan v. Arreguini (Child Custody) (Nev. 2013).
“2d 1258, 1261 (1996); but see NRS 125C.230(1) (providing that clear and convincing evidence of domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that custody with the perpetrator is not in the child's best interest).”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 125C.230(1)(b) — 1 case
Caruso v. Maize (Child Custody) (Nev. 2015).
“domestic violence conviction but reasoned that NRS 125C.230's presumption against placing a child in the custody of a parent who committed domestic violence was not sufficiently persuasive to preclude an award of custody to Maize.”
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.