Last Updated on Thursday, 01 September 2011 06:28

The below information is basic information. Each case is fact specific and therefore this information is only general in nature.

Since the economic downturn in Nevada’s economy and the increased unemployment rate, Hanratty Law Group has seen a substantial increase in parents requesting to relocate outside the State of Nevada with minor children.

In the past two years, Hanratty Law Group has successfully settled and litigated multiple relocation cases representing both the requesting and the defending party. Whether you retain Hanratty Law Group or another law firm, relocation cases are difficult to litigate and should be handled by an experienced attorney.

Whether you are requesting to relocate outside the State of Nevada with a minor or if you are attempting to defend a relocation, you must be familiar with the law regulating relocation with minor children.

First, prior to relocating with a child outside the State of Nevada pursuant to NRS 125C.200, the party requesting to move must, as soon as possible and before the planned move, attempt to obtain the written consent to move with the child. If the other parent refuses to provide written consent, then the requesting party must petition the Court to relocate with the minor child prior to leaving the State of Nevada.
Should the Parties be unable to settle the issues, the Court must first determine the applicable law.

If the Parties have joint physical custody of the minor child, the Court will apply, Potter vs. Potter. In this scenario, the Court must determine whether it is in the best interest of the minor child to remain in Nevada with parent A or relocate with parent B.

In applying the best interest standard, the Court’s look to NRS 125.480 and the following factors therein.

• The wishes of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to his or her custody.
• Any nomination by a parent or a guardian for the child.
• Which parent is more likely to allow the child to have 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 needs of the child.
• The mental and physical health of the parents.
• The physical, developmental and emotional needs of the child.
• The nature of the relationship of the child with each parent.
• The ability of the child to maintain a relationship with any sibling.
• Any history of parental abuse or neglect of the child or a sibling of the child.
• Whether either parent or any other person seeking custody has engaged in an act of domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child or any other person residing with the child.
• Whether either parent or any other person seeking custody has committed any act of abduction against the child or any other child.

If the parent requesting to relocate with the minor child is the primary physical custodian, the Court will apply Schwartz vs. Schwartz. The Party requesting to move must first demonstrate an actual advantage will be realized by both the parent and the minor child. If the parent requesting to move can establish an actual advantage to the move, the Court will then look to several additional factors prior to granting or denying the relocation as follows:

• The extent in which the move is likely to improve the quality of life for both the child and the custodial parent.
• Whether the custodial parent’s motives are honorable, and not designated to frustrate or defeat the visitation rights of the non-custodial parent.
• Whether the custodial parent is willing to comply with any substitute visitation orders issued by the court in the event that permission is granted.
• Whether the noncustodial parent’s motives is opposing the move are honorable, and
• Whether, if the move is allowed, there will be a realistic opportunity for the non-custodial parent to maintain a visitation schedule that will adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship.