Opinion ID: 2636236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Missouri definition

Text: Of the states that define joint physical custody, most utilize a definition similar to Missouri's definition. [10] The Missouri definition comports with this court's precedent. In particular, the Missouri definition does not require an equal timeshare, and this court has similarly indicated that joint physical custody arrangements may include unequal timeshares. [11] Further, the Missouri definition is not contrary to any legislative mandates because the Nevada Legislature declined to specify whether joint physical custody requires a particular timeshare. [12] The Missouri definition of joint physical custody, which focuses on significant, but not necessarily equal [13] periods of time during which the child and each parent are together, provides the district courts and parents with flexibility when creating joint physical custody arrangements. The Missouri definition also helps courts clarify what parents mean when they use the term joint physical custody without specifying what timeshare they are implementing. [14] Under the Missouri definition, courts must determine the true nature of the custodial arrangement by considering whether each parent's time with the child is significant, frequent, continuous, and meaningful. [15] Because the Missouri definition provides flexibility and requires courts to clarify parents' joint physical custody arrangements, we conclude that district courts should apply the Missouri definition in determining whether a joint physical custody arrangement exists. We now address the issues on appeal.