Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 432B - PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM ABUSE AND NEGLECT
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 432B.570 (2026)

Motion for revocation or modification of order

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 432B.570  Motion for revocation or modification of order.

      1.  A motion for revocation or modification of an order issued pursuant to NRS 432B.550 or 432B.560 may be filed by the custodian of the child, the governmental organization or person responsible for supervising the care of the child, the guardian ad litem of the child or a parent or guardian. Notice of this motion must be given by registered or certified mail to all parties of the adjudicatory hearing, the custodian and the governmental organization or person responsible for supervising the care of the child.

      2.  The court shall hold a hearing on the motion and may dismiss the motion or revoke or modify any order as it determines is in the best interest of the child.

      (Added to NRS by 1985, 1383)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2014–2022 · leading case: Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “560(1) (stating that the court may issue orders for treatment and visitation in "the best interests of the child"); NRS 432B.570(2) (stating that the court shall decide motions for revocation or modification of orders in "the best interest of the child"); Clark Cty.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 2× “560(1) (stating that the court may issue orders for treatment and visitation in "the best interests of the child"); NRS 432B.570(2) (stating that the court shall decide motions for revocation or modification of orders in "the best interest of the child"); Clark Cty.”
Hernandez Vs. Dist. Ct. (state), 2016 NV 1 (Nev. 2016). · cites it 2× “We denied Manuela's petition because she had an adequate remedy at law- filing a motion to revoke or modify the case plan pursuant to NRS 432B.570(1). Accordingly, Manuela filed a motion to amend her case plan.”
Hernandez v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “Petitioner has an adequate legal remedy by which to challenge the drug-testing portion of her case plan in the form of a motion to revoke or modify the case plan under NRS 432B.570(1). See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.”
Tirikos Vs. Dist. Ct. (state), 2015 NV 77 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 2× “See NRS 432B.570(2) (allowing the court to "revoke or modify any order as it determines is in the best interest of the child").”
Clark Cnty. Dep't. of Fam. Serv.'s v. Dist Ct. (D.) (Nev. 2016). “Here, DFS failed to file a motion to revoke or modify the district court order pursuant to NRS 432B.570(1). When a motion to modify or revoke an order is made, "Mlle [district] court shall hold a hearing on the motion and may dismiss the motion or revoke or modify any order as…”
Hernandez Vs. Dist. Ct. (state), 2016 NV 1 (Nev. 2016). “We denied Manuela's petition because she had an adequate remedy at law- filing a motion to revoke or modify the case plan pursuant to NRS 432B.570(1). Accordingly, Manuela filed a motion to amend her case plan.”
Misti M. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't. of Fam. Serv's.) (Nev. 2015). “" NRS 432B.570(2). Since the present district court was sitting as a juvenile court and was presiding over proceedings relating to the protection of a child, it had jurisdiction to resolve Misti's motion.”
Tirikos Vs. Dist. Ct. (state), 2015 NV 77 (Nev. 2015). “See NRS 432B.570(2) (allowing the court to "revoke or modify any order as it determines is in the best interest of the child").”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 432B.570(1) — 4 cases
Hernandez Vs. Dist. Ct. (state), 2016 NV 1 (Nev. 2016). “We denied Manuela's petition because she had an adequate remedy at law- filing a motion to revoke or modify the case plan pursuant to NRS 432B.570(1). Accordingly, Manuela filed a motion to amend her case plan.”
Clark Cnty. Dep't. of Fam. Serv.'s v. Dist Ct. (D.) (Nev. 2016). “Here, DFS failed to file a motion to revoke or modify the district court order pursuant to NRS 432B.570(1). When a motion to modify or revoke an order is made, "Mlle [district] court shall hold a hearing on the motion and may dismiss the motion or revoke or modify any order as…”
Hernandez Vs. Dist. Ct. (state), 2016 NV 1 (Nev. 2016). “We denied Manuela's petition because she had an adequate remedy at law- filing a motion to revoke or modify the case plan pursuant to NRS 432B.570(1). Accordingly, Manuela filed a motion to amend her case plan.”
Hernandez v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2014). “Petitioner has an adequate legal remedy by which to challenge the drug-testing portion of her case plan in the form of a motion to revoke or modify the case plan under NRS 432B.570(1). See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 432B.570(2) — 6 cases
Monahan v. Hogan, 507 P.3d 588 (Nev. 2022). “560(1) (stating that the court may issue orders for treatment and visitation in "the best interests of the child"); NRS 432B.570(2) (stating that the court shall decide motions for revocation or modification of orders in "the best interest of the child"); Clark Cty.”
Monahan v. Hogan (child Custody), 2022 NV 7 (Nev. 2022). “560(1) (stating that the court may issue orders for treatment and visitation in "the best interests of the child"); NRS 432B.570(2) (stating that the court shall decide motions for revocation or modification of orders in "the best interest of the child"); Clark Cty.”
Tirikos Vs. Dist. Ct. (state), 2015 NV 77 (Nev. 2015). “See NRS 432B.570(2) (allowing the court to "revoke or modify any order as it determines is in the best interest of the child").”
Hernandez v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Nev. 2014). “Petitioner has an adequate legal remedy by which to challenge the drug-testing portion of her case plan in the form of a motion to revoke or modify the case plan under NRS 432B.570(1). See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.”
Misti M. v. Dist. Ct. (State, Dep't. of Fam. Serv's.) (Nev. 2015). “" NRS 432B.570(2). Since the present district court was sitting as a juvenile court and was presiding over proceedings relating to the protection of a child, it had jurisdiction to resolve Misti's motion.”
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.