Judge looking at lawyersThis post continues my discussion on child relocation cases in which the parent requesting to move has primary custody of the child. My last article discussed the fact that a Judge may deny relocation even if a parent has primary custody. This is due to the fact that a parent may not move a child out of Nevada unless it is shown that the relocation would be in the best interest of the child. This article will expand upon that discussion by analyzing how a parent may oppose their counterpart’s request for relocation. If you or a family member are in need of assistance then contact my office today to speak with a Las Vegas child relocation lawyer.

Las Vegas parents can oppose relocation requests by showing that the move would not improve the child’s quality of life

Nevada is like many other states in that a Court will not permit a child to move out of state unless it is shown that the relocation would improve the child’s quality of life. This means, conversely, that a parent who is opposing the move can do so by showing that the relocation would not serve the child’s best interest. Examples of how one can establish that the move would not serve the child well can include establishing that it would not result in increased educational opportunities, that the new proposed area is in a higher crime area, that special programs that the child may need will be in lower supply, and more. When making such claims to the Court, it will be important to present objective evidence and to not simply make broad generalizations. The Court will typically be more responsive to the former and will often disregard the latter.

The foregoing is best explained by way of example. Suppose a Las Vegas mother is originally from the Bay Area and wishes to relocate back to San Francisco with her child. The father opposes the move and provides verified government statistics showing that the mother would be moving to an area with a much higher crime rate than where the child currently lives. The Court may deny the request out of concern for the child’s safety. If, on the other hand, the mother can establish that the child would be living in a safe neighborhood, and that the child would have better educational opportunities, then the Court may grant the request. It should be remembered that how the Court will rule in any given case will always depend on the specific facts of the matter.

The Court will focus on objective facts when determining what is in the best interest of the child

The Court will focus on objective facts and not opinions or generalizations when considering a child relocation request. This means, for example, a parent who claims that an area has a higher crime rate must be ready to support their accusations with government statistics which show the crime rate. Also, claims must be specific to the facts of a given case. Suppose, for example, that the proposed move would be to a state where the schools score lower on standardized testing. A parent may attempt to claim that this is bad for the child. If, however, it is shown that the specific school, which the child will be attending, scores higher on standardized tests then the Court will often prioritize these individualized test scores. In other words, the Court will concern itself with facts that actually impact the child. To gain a better understanding of what the Court may, or may not consider, it is best to speak with an attorney.

If you are opposing a parent who wishes to move a child out of state then contact my office today to speak with a Las Vegas child custody lawyer. I practice solely in the area of family law and my office will give your case the attention it deserves. If you need assistance with a child relocation case then contact us online or by telephone to schedule an initial consultation. I look forward to speaking with you.