SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

have frequent associations with both parents," and that "it would be 

almost impossible for the kids to see Mom every weekend if they were up 

in Reno." Ultimately, after three hearings, the district court denied Gary's 

motion because "it ha[d] serious doubts as to whether there would ever be 

sufficient money between these two parents. . . to ever have any kind of 

effective schedule where Mom could see the children on any kind of 

regular basis." In reaching its decision, the court rejected Gary's "request 

to modify Plaintiffs timeshare," reasoning: "I'm not allowing substituted 

visitation... . Because I'm not. I don't think it's in the children's best 

interest, that's why." The district court also denied the request to modify 

custody that Pilar included in her opposition to Gary's motion, but 

moments later stated that it was modifying custody by granting Pilar an 

additional evening of visitation. This appeal followed. Generally, "[t]his 

court reviews the district court's decisions regarding custody, including 

visitation schedules, for an abuse of discretion." River() v. River°, 125 Nev. 

410, 428, 216 P.3d 213, 226 (2009). However, purely legal issues, 

including whether the appropriate legal standard was applied, are 

reviewed de novo. See Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 49, 257 P.3d 

396, 399 (2011). We reverseS and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with the legal standards articulated in this order. 

This appeal originally presented what both parties correctly 

saw as an open and unsettled question of Nevada law: whether a parent 

with primary physical custody must obtain consent from the noncustodial 

parent or the district court before moving himself and his children a long 

distance within Nevada. While this case was pending, however, the 

Nevada Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Assembly Bill 263, 

which amends Nevada's relocation statute, NRS 125C.200, as follows: 

1. If primary physical custody has been 

established pursuant to an order, judgment or 

2 
decree of a court and the custodial parent intends 

to relocate his or her residence to a place outside 

of this State or to a place within this State that is 

at such a distance that would substantially impair 

the ability of the other parent to maintain a 

meaningful relationship with the child, and the 

custodial parent desires to take the child with him 

or her, the custodial parent shall, before 

relocation: 

(a) Attempt to obtain the written consent of 

the noncustodial parent to relocate with the child; 

and 

(b) If the noncustodial parent refuses to give 

that consent, petition the court for permission to 

relocate with the child. 

A.B. 263, 78th Leg. § 16 (Nev. 2015) (emphasis added). A.B. 263 becomes 

effective on October 1, 2015. 1 See Nevada Electronic Legislative 

Information System, AB 263 Overview, https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/ 

NELIS/REL/78th2015/Bil111726/Overview (last visited July 9, 2015). 

Section 14 of A.B. 263 also articulates the procedure that 

applies Uri every instance of a petition for permission to relocate with a 

child that is filed pursuant to NRS 125C.200." A.B. 263, 78th Leg. § 14 

(Nev. 2015). First, the relocating parent must demonstrate that: 

(a) There exists a sensible, good-faith reason for 

the move, and the move is not intended to deprive 

the non-relocating parent of his or her parenting 

time; (b) The best interests of the child are served 

by allowing the relocating parent to relocate with 

the child; and (c) The child and the relocating 

lAlthough the amendment is not yet effective, it will fill a gap in 

existing statutory law when it takes effect. Rather than create law that 

will be superseded statutorily in a matter of months, we accept the 

standards as articulated in A.B. 263 as clarifying or, at minimum, 

persuasive as to the standards to be applied in this setting. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A aft. 

3 
parent will benefit from an actual advantage as a 

result of the relocation. 

Id. If the relocating parent satisfies the threshold inquiry, then the court 

must weigh the following six factors and the impact of the factors on the 

child and both parents: 

(a) The extent to which the relocation is likely to 

improve the quality of life for the child and the 

relocating parent; 

(b) Whether the motives of the relocating parent 

are honorable and not designed to frustrate or 

defeat any visitation rights accorded to the nonrelocating parent; 

(c) Whether the relocating parent will comply with 

any substitute visitation orders issued by the 

court if permission to relocate is granted; 

(d) Whether the motives of the non-relocating 

parent are honorable in resisting the petition for 

permission to relocate or to what extent any 

opposition to the petition for permission to 

relocate is intended to secure a financial 

advantage in the form of ongoing support 

obligations or otherwise; 

(e) Whether there will be a realistic opportunity 

for the non-relocating parent to maintain a 

visitation schedule that will adequately foster and 

preserve the parental relationship between the 

child and the non-relocating parent if permission 

to relocate is granted; and 

(0 Any other factor necessary to assist the court in 

determining whether to grant permission to 

relocate. 

Id. 

Although "[c]ourts presume that a custody statute or 

amendment operates prospectively absent any declaration that it is to 

operate retroactively," 3A Norman J. Singer & Shambie Singer, 

Sutherland Statutory Construction § 69:8 (7th ed. Supp. 2014), the 

4 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A e 
"general rule does not apply to statutes that do not change substantive 

rights and instead relate solely to remedies and procedure." Valdez v. 

Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., 123 Nev. 170, 179-80, 162 P.3d 148, 154 (2007). 

Here, Section 14 essentially mirrors the interstate relocation guidelines 

that this court first established in Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 

812 P.2d 1268 (1991), and has consistently followed, most recently in 

Druckman v. Ruscitti, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 50, 327 P.3d 511, 515 (2014). 

Although A.B. 263 is new in that it extends the interstate relocation 

standard to certain intrastate relocation cases, it does not make sense not 

to accept its standards as applicable to parents who wish to relocate 

intrastate, a subject previously left to judicial development. Thus, we 

consider whether the district court reached its conclusions for the 

appropriate reason(s) in light of the standards set forth in NRS 125C.200, 

as amended. 

SUPRENE COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

"Specific findings and an adequate explanation of the reasons 

for the custody [or visitation] determination 'are crucial to enforce or 

modify a custody order and for appellate review." Davis v. Ewalefo, 131 

Nev., Adv. Op. 45, P.3d , (2015) (quoting Rivero, 125 Nev. at 

430, 216 P.3d at 227). Here, the district court denied Gary's motion for 

reasons that are not entirely clear to this court, and granted Pilar's 

request for a change of custody despite its oral statement that "her 

exhibits do not provide [t]he [clourt with sufficient evidence to modify 

custody. So that request is denied." And while the district court signed an 

order that Gary prepared, the order did not include any factual findings or 

conclusions of law. See Id., 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 45, P.3d. at 

(reversing and remanding a child custody determination where the district 

court's failure to include findings to support its conclusion left the court in 

doubt as to whether 'the district court's determination was made for 

(0) 1947A 9410.4 

5 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

appropriate reasons." (quoting Rico v. Rodriguez, 121 Nev. 695, 701, 120 

P.3d 812, 816 (2005)). 

More importantly, the district court based its denial of Gary's 

request to move on "a shift away from weekly contact [with Pilad," 

Halbrook v. Halbrook, 114 Nev. 1455, 1459, 971 P.2d 1262, 1265 (1998), 

requiring Gary to show that "it's in• the best interest of the children that 

[Pilad have less time with her kids or that her custodial time be changed." 

The record shows, however, that Gary has continuously provided for the 

children's daily needs since 2007, and as the parent with primary physical 

custody, Gary has "the primary responsibility for maintaining a home for 

the child[ren]." River°, 125 Nev. at 428, 216 P.3d at 226. There is no 

evidence that Gary's purpose in relocating to Reno is to deprive Pilar of 

her parenting time, as the district court repeatedly acknowledged that 

Gary supports the relationship between the children and Pilar, and the 

primary purposes of the move—obtaining higher education and reuniting 

the minor children with their older sisters—benefit both Gary's and the 

children's interests. See McGuinness v. McGuinness, 114 Nev. 1431, 1436, 

970 P.2d 1074, 1078 (1998) (observing that a child's best interest does not 

exist in a vacuum and "the well-being of a parent, which could be 

heightened by relocation, may have a substantial effect on the best 

interest of the child"); Druckman, 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 50, 327 P.3d at 516 

(recognizing that the bond between a child and her older sibling supports a 

parent's desire to relocate closer to the older sibling). And while longdistance relocation inevitably lessens the opportunities for daily or weekly 

physical contact, "[p]hysical separation does not preclude each parent from 

maintaining significant and substantial involvement in a child's life," 

McGuinness, 114 Nev. at 1436, 970 P.2d at 1077, especially where, as 

here, the parties regularly communicate via telephone or Skype. See also 

(0) 1947A en 

6 
Saitta 

J. 

J. 

Pickering 

Trent v. Trent, 111 Nev. 309, 316-17, 890 P.2d 1309, 1313-14 (1995) 

(reversing a district court order denying a parent's request to relocate 

where the district court "fail[ed] to consider whether reasonable, 

alternative visitation was possible"). 

Because the district court improperly weighed the fact that 

Pilar would no longer have weekly, in-person contact with the children, we 

reverse the order denying Gary's request to relocate and remand this 

matter to the district court for an evaluation of whether reasonable, 

alternative visitation is available. If necessary, the district court shall 

also consider whether Gary's relocation to Reno is a "substantial change in 

circumstances" that "warrant[s] a custody modification." Ellis v. Carucci, 

123 Nev. 145, 150-51, 161 P.3d 239, 242-43 (2007). 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court, Department T 

Doyle Law Office, PLLC 

Black & LoBello 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

7 

(0) 1947A ea