Nevada Child Custody Agreement
Nevada built parents who already agree their own route into court, a single sworn joint petition with the signed agreement attached, and then set rules about how that agreement is written.
Find out where you stand in Nevada
Where are you with the custody arrangement?
DocDraft provides document preparation, not legal advice.
Introduction
Nevada is one of the few states that built a dedicated route for parents who have already agreed. Since 2023 the summary custody proceeding at NRS 125C.008 to 125C.0089 has let both parents file one joint petition, signed under oath, with the executed custody agreement included in the petition or attached to it as an exhibit, after which the court enters a custody order. Agreeing also moves the substantive starting point, though not in the way most summaries suggest: under NRS 125C.002(1)(a) parents who have agreed to an award of joint legal custody get a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint legal custody is in the child's best interest, while NRS 125C.0025(1)(a) gives the identical agreement only a preference that joint physical custody is in the child's best interest. Nevada does not use the phrase parenting plan anywhere in its custody chapters, so plan language borrowed from another state reads as out of place here. What the statute regulates instead is the drafting: NRS 125C.008(4) requires the agreement to define the parents' rights and duties with sufficient particularity, which the statute defines to mean stating them in absolute terms and not by using the word reasonable or any similar term susceptible to different interpretations. None of that displaces the court, because NRS 125C.0035(1) makes the best interest of the child the sole consideration of the court in any action determining physical custody.
Key Things to Know
- 1
There is a route that exists only because you agree. The summary custody proceeding at NRS 125C.008 to 125C.0089 lets both parents file a single joint petition in a district court, signed under oath by each of them, stating that the conditions in NRS 125C.008 are met and supplying the child custody information required by NRS 125A.385. Under NRS 125C.0083 the agreement the parties want the court to approve or make part of the order must be included in the petition or identified and attached as an exhibit. Entry of the order then constitutes an adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the custody, care, education, maintenance and support of the child under NRS 125C.0087(1).
- 2
Agreeing does different work for legal custody than for physical custody, and the two sections are easy to blur. NRS 125C.002(1)(a) creates a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint legal custody is in the child's best interest where the parents have agreed to it, either in a signed agreement or in open court at the custody hearing. NRS 125C.0025(1)(a) uses the same trigger but a weaker word, creating only a preference that joint physical custody is in the child's best interest, with no burden of proof language at all. Nevada is therefore not accurately described as presuming joint physical custody.
- 3
Nevada polices the wording of the agreement itself, which is unusual. NRS 125C.008(4) requires the rights and duties of each party to be defined with sufficient particularity, and the statute states what that means: the rights are set forth in absolute terms and not by use of the term reasonable or any other similar term that is susceptible to different interpretations. The same standard is imposed on the resulting order by NRS 125C.0045(5) and on visitation orders by NRS 125C.010. So an agreement that gives one parent reasonable visitation fails the statute on its face, and a schedule has to name days, times, and places.
- 4
The agreement has a required subject list. NRS 125C.008(2) provides that the executed agreement must specify, without limitation, the custody, medical or other care, education, maintenance and support of the child. Support has to be addressed for the agreement to qualify, but the amount itself is a separate calculation and is not settled by a custody agreement. Keep the two questions apart when you draft.
- 5
Nevada has no parenting plan, and that is a finding rather than a gap. The phrase does not appear in NRS chapter 125 or chapter 125C, and no proceeding requires one. NRS 125C.005(1) is purely permissive, providing that the court may, when appropriate, require the parents to submit a plan for carrying out the court's order concerning custody, which is a plan for implementing an order that already exists rather than the instrument the court decides from. A related point worth knowing is that NRS 125C.0015(2) gives each parent joint legal custody and joint physical custody until a court orders otherwise, so having no order is not the same as having no custody rights.
- 6
Twelve factors govern physical custody, on an open list. NRS 125C.0035(4) directs the court to consider and set forth its specific findings concerning, among other things, twelve lettered items from (a) to (l), including the wishes of a child of sufficient age and capacity, the level of conflict between the parents, the ability of the parents to cooperate to meet the child's needs, which parent is more likely to allow frequent associations with the other, the child's relationship with each parent and with any sibling, and any history of abuse, neglect, domestic violence, or abduction. The two that a filed agreement speaks to most directly are the level of conflict and the ability to cooperate. Note also NRS 125C.0035(3)(a): where a parent applied for joint physical custody and the court does not award it, the court must state in its decision the reason for the denial.
- 7
Domestic violence in Nevada runs on court findings, which is why it interacts badly with the agreed route. Under NRS 125C.0035(5) a determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing, and a finding by clear and convincing evidence, that a parent or other person seeking physical custody 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 physical custody by that person is not in the child's best interest. The same finding independently makes joint physical custody presumed not to be in the child's best interest under NRS 125C.003(1)(c), and domestic violence is separately best interest factor (k). If there has been abuse, this is a situation to raise with a lawyer rather than settle on a form.
Key decisions before you file
Before you file a Child Custody Agreement in Nevada, a few decisions shape the document: which option to choose and what each one means. The Child Custody Agreement guide walks through them.
Open the Child Custody Agreement guideCustomize your Child Custody Agreement Template with DocDraft
Nevada Requirements for Child Custody Agreement
Parents who agree may file one joint petition, signed under oath by both, for a summary determination of custody. The conditions include that the parties have executed an agreement as to the custody of the child, that use of the summary proceeding is in the child's best interest, and that the agreement accords with chapter 125A, NRS 125C.0045, and any other law governing custody. Under NRS 125C.008(6) the parties waive notice of entry, appeal, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a new trial.
The agreement the parties wish the court to approve or make part of the order must be included in the petition or identified and attached to it as an exhibit, and the petition must supply the child custody information required by NRS 125A.385. Draft the agreement as a standalone exhibit that can be filed without rewriting.
The executed agreement must specify, without limitation, the custody, medical or other care, education, maintenance and support of the child. All five subjects need their own terms; the amount of child support is a separate calculation and is not settled by the custody terms.
Rights and duties must be defined with sufficient particularity, which the statute defines as setting them out in absolute terms and not by use of the term reasonable or any other similar term susceptible to different interpretations. The same standard applies to the order and, under NRS 125C.010, to visitation orders, so terms such as reasonable visitation do not satisfy it.
Where the parents have agreed to an award of joint legal custody, in a signed agreement or in open court at the custody hearing, there is a presumption affecting the burden of proof that joint legal custody is in the child's best interest. Record the agreement to the award expressly so the trigger is met on the face of the document.
The same agreement about physical custody creates only a preference that joint physical custody is in the child's best interest, not a presumption and no shift in the burden of proof. Nevada should not be described as presuming joint physical custody.
Either parent may revoke the joint petition at any time before entry of the order, by filing a notice of revocation with the clerk and mailing a copy to the other parent, with no showing required. The agreement carries no force until the order is entered.
Best interest is the sole consideration of the court in any action determining physical custody, and the court must consider and set forth specific findings concerning twelve lettered factors, among other things. The level of conflict between the parents and their ability to cooperate are factors (d) and (e), both of which an agreed and detailed schedule speaks to directly.
A parent must obtain the other parent's written consent or the court's permission before relocating with the child outside Nevada, or within Nevada at a distance that would substantially impair the other parent's ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child. There is no notice period. NRS 125C.007(3) places the burden on the relocating parent, and NRS 125C.0075(1) bars the court from considering post-relocation facts where a parent moved without consent or permission.
A determination after an evidentiary hearing, and a finding by clear and convincing evidence, that a person seeking physical custody engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint physical custody by that person is not in the child's best interest, and independently makes joint physical custody presumed not to be in the child's best interest. Because the presumption depends on findings made at a hearing, the summary agreed track is not the right vehicle where there is a history of abuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Three things change, and they are not the same for legal and physical custody. Under NRS 125C.002(1)(a) there is a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint legal custody is in the child's best interest if the parents have agreed to an award of joint legal custody, either in a signed agreement or in open court at the custody hearing. Under NRS 125C.0025(1)(a) the identical agreement about physical custody creates only a preference that joint physical custody is in the child's best interest, with no burden of proof attached. Agreeing also unlocks the summary custody proceeding at NRS 125C.008 to 125C.0089, which is not available to parents who do not agree. What agreeing does not do is bind the court, because NRS 125C.0035(1) makes the best interest of the child the sole consideration of the court in any action determining physical custody.
It is a short track for parents who have already settled the arrangement, added in 2023 and set out at NRS 125C.008 to 125C.0089. Both parents file one joint petition in any district court, signed under oath by each of them, stating that every condition in NRS 125C.008 is met and providing the child custody information required by NRS 125A.385. NRS 125C.0083 requires the agreement the parties wish the court to approve or make part of the order to be included in the petition or identified and attached as an exhibit. The conditions include that the use of the summary proceeding is in the best interest of the child and that the agreement accords with chapter 125A, NRS 125C.0045, and any other law governing custody. Under NRS 125C.008(6) the parties waive notice of entry of the order, the right to appeal, the right to request findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the right to a new trial.
Yes. Nothing in the agreement has effect until the court enters an order on it. NRS 125C.0083(3) describes the agreement as one the parties wish the court to approve or make a part of the order, and NRS 125C.0087(1) provides that entry of the order on a summary petition constitutes an adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties regarding the custody, care, education, maintenance and support of the child. The court is also not a rubber stamp: the summary route is available only where the conditions in NRS 125C.008 are satisfied, including that its use is in the child's best interest, and NRS 125C.0035(1) makes best interest the sole consideration of the court in any physical custody action.
Yes, and without giving a reason. Under NRS 125C.0085 either parent may revoke the joint petition at any time before entry of the order by filing a notice of revocation with the clerk of the court and mailing a copy to the other parent. That ends the summary proceeding. It is worth knowing before you rely on the agreed track, because the agreement carries no force in the meantime and the case then has to proceed the ordinary way.
No, and this is the most concrete drafting rule Nevada gives. NRS 125C.008(4) requires the agreement to define the rights and duties of each party with sufficient particularity, and the statute defines that phrase: the rights are set forth in absolute terms and not by use of the term reasonable or any other similar term that is susceptible to different interpretations. The same standard applies to the resulting order under NRS 125C.0045(5), which requires all specific times and other terms of a limited right of custody to be defined the same way, and to visitation orders under NRS 125C.010. A schedule that names days, start and end times, exchange locations, and who provides transportation meets the rule; one that leaves the arrangement to what is reasonable does not.
No. The phrase parenting plan does not appear in NRS chapter 125 or chapter 125C, and no Nevada proceeding requires one. Nevada uses ordinary custody vocabulary throughout, splitting custody into legal custody and physical custody, and its companion concept is visitation rather than parenting time. There is one provision that sounds similar and is not: NRS 125C.005(1) says the court may, when appropriate, require the parents to submit a plan for carrying out the court's order concerning custody, which is a plan for implementing an order that already exists. A form written around filing a parenting plan is not using Nevada's structure.
NRS 125C.008(2) sets the subject list for the agreement used in a summary proceeding: it must specify, without limitation, the custody, medical or other care, education, maintenance and support of the child. NRS 125C.008(4) then adds the particularity rule, so each of those subjects has to be stated in absolute terms. Support has to be addressed for the agreement to qualify, but the amount is a separate calculation and is not settled by the custody terms. Beyond the required list, the useful additions are the ones that keep the schedule enforceable: exchange locations and times, transportation, travel, and how each parent communicates with the child.
NRS 125C.0035(4) lists twelve, lettered (a) through (l), and directs the court to consider and set forth its specific findings concerning, among other things, those items, so the list is open rather than closed. They are the wishes of a child of sufficient age and capacity; any nomination of a guardian by a parent; which parent is more likely to allow frequent associations and a continuing relationship with the noncustodial parent; the level of conflict between the parents; the ability of the parents to cooperate to meet the child's needs; the mental and physical health of the parents; the physical, developmental and emotional needs of the child; the nature of the child's relationship with each parent; the child's ability to maintain a relationship with any sibling; any history of parental abuse or neglect of the child or a sibling; domestic violence against the child, a parent, or another person residing with the child; and any act of abduction against the child or any other child. The list sits in the physical custody section, and NRS 125C.002 contains no separate factor list for legal custody.
Not on notice alone, and Nevada is stricter here than most states. Under NRS 125C.006 a parent with primary physical custody must, before relocating, attempt to obtain the written consent of the noncustodial parent and, if consent is refused, petition the court for permission to relocate. Where the parents share joint physical custody, NRS 125C.0065 requires a petition for primary physical custody for the purpose of relocating. The trigger is a move outside Nevada or a move within Nevada at such a distance that would substantially impair the other parent's ability to maintain a meaningful relationship with the child, so there is no mileage test and an in state move can count. NRS 125C.007(3) puts the burden on the parent who wants to relocate to prove that relocating with the child is in the child's best interest, after first clearing the threshold in NRS 125C.007(1). Moving without consent or permission carries real consequences: NRS 125C.006(3) and 125C.0065(3) subject the parent to NRS 200.359, and under NRS 125C.0075(1) the court will not consider post-relocation facts about the welfare of the child or the relocating parent and must award attorney's fees to the other parent. Refusing consent is not costless either, since NRS 125C.006(2) and 125C.0065(2) allow fees against a parent who withholds consent without reasonable grounds or to harass.
It operates at three levels at once. Domestic violence against the child, a parent, or another person residing with the child is best interest factor (k) under NRS 125C.0035(4). Beyond that, NRS 125C.0035(5) provides that a determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing, and a finding by clear and convincing evidence, that a parent or other person seeking physical custody has engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint physical custody by the perpetrator is not in the child's best interest, and the court must then set out findings supporting the determination and findings that the arrangement it orders adequately protects the child and the victim parent. The same clear and convincing finding independently makes joint physical custody presumed not to be in the child's best interest under NRS 125C.003(1)(c). Where both parties committed acts of domestic violence, NRS 125C.0035(6) requires the court to determine the primary physical aggressor if it can, weighing prior acts, the relative severity of injuries, the likelihood of future injury, self-defense, and any other relevant factor, and if it cannot, the presumption applies to both. Because all of this turns on findings made after an evidentiary hearing, and the summary proceeding involves no such hearing, a history of domestic violence is a strong reason not to use the agreed track.