This text of Nevada § 432B.159 (Presumption concerning custody and visitation when parent or other person seeking custody of child is perpetrator of any act of abduction against the child) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
1. 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 committed any act of abduction against the child or any other child creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator of the abduction is not in the best interest of the child. If the parent or other person seeking custody does not rebut the presumption, the court shall not enter an order for sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator and the court shall set forth:
(a)Findings of fact that support the determination that one or more acts of abduction occurred; and
(b)Findings that the custody or visitation arra
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1. 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 committed any act of abduction against the child or any other child creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator of the abduction is not in the best interest of the child. If the parent or other person seeking custody does not rebut the presumption, the court shall not enter an order for sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator and the court shall set forth:
(a) Findings of fact that support the determination that one or more acts of abduction occurred; and
(b) Findings that the custody or visitation arrangement ordered by the court adequately protects the child and the parent or other person from whom the child was abducted.
2. For purposes of subsection 1, any of the following acts constitute conclusive evidence that an act of abduction occurred:
(a) A conviction of the defendant of any violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340 , inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct;
(b) A plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the defendant to any violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340 , inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct; or
(c) An admission by the defendant to the court of the facts contained in the charging document alleging a violation of NRS 200.310 to 200.340 , inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct.
3. If, after a court enters a final order concerning custody of the child, a magistrate determines there is probable cause to believe that an act of abduction has been committed against the child or any other child and that a person who has been awarded sole or joint custody or unsupervised visitation of the child has committed the act, the court shall, upon a motion to modify the order concerning custody, reconsider the previous order concerning custody pursuant to subsections 1 and 2.
4. A court, agency, institution or other person who places a child in protective custody shall not release a child to the custody of a person who a court has determined pursuant to this section has engaged in one or more acts of abduction against the child or any other child, unless a court determines that it is in the best interest of the child for the perpetrator of the abduction to have custody of the child.
5. As used in this section, “abduction” means the commission of an act described in NRS 200.310 to 200.340 , inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct.