NRS 125C.010

Order awarding visitation rights must define rights with particularity and specify habitual residence of child

Known as the Uniform Deployed Parents Custody and Visitation Act

The act spans §§ 125–125 (84 sections).

Applied in 4 court decisions — leading case Rivero v. Rivero (2009)

Most recently applied in Roe v. Roe (July 2023)

(Added to NRS by 1993, 2137; A 1995, 1493, 2289)

How often courts cite this section

citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

1. Any order awarding a party a right of visitation of a minor child must:

(a) Define that right with sufficient particularity to ensure that the rights of the parties can be properly enforced and that the best interest of the child is achieved; and

(b) Specify that the State of Nevada or the state where the child resides within the United States of America is the habitual residence of the child.

Ê The order must include all specific times and other terms of the right of visitation.

2. As used in this section, “sufficient particularity” means a statement of the rights in absolute terms and not by the use of the term “reasonable” or other similar term which is susceptible to different interpretations by the parties.

Official source: Nevada Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nevada statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.