In a recent holding, the Court of Appeals of the State of Nevada (“Court of Appeals”), confirmed that an act of withholding a child from the other parent for Court Ordered custodial timeshare may be an act of abduction. Dace v. Velazquez-Gonzalez, Nevada Advanced Opinion February 27, 2026. Moreover, an act of withholding may support a finding of a substantial change in circumstance. Id. This is relevant as in Nevada, in order to modify physical custody there is a two (2) prong test- (1.) a substantial change in circumstance, and (2.) that the modification is in the minor child’s best interest. Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. _____, 501 P.3d 980 (Adv. Opn. January 13, 2022).
Here, we focus on the act of withholding and that it may meet the first prong as a substantial change in circumstance.
In the case, Mother testified that prior to Father leaving for Mexico on vacation in 2023, she had all the required itinerary information as set forth in the Decree of Divorce. When it came time to exchange the minor child, Mother did not do the exchange on or about March 15, 2023. When questioned about the demands she made on Father before he could travel with the minor child in 2023, Mother confirmed that nothing that she was demanding was in a Court Order.
Father testified that after Mother withheld the minor child on or about March 15, 2023, Mother herself then traveled to Mexico for a vacation in the summer of 2023.
The District Court then found that there was a substantial change in circumstance affecting the welfare of the minor child. The specific language of the Court of Appeal states, “the district court found that, while Enrique could not prevail in limiting Luba’s parenting time based on the abduction presumption, he had “nonetheless established a substantial change of circumstances affecting the child's welfare.” Dace v. Velazquez-Gonzalez, Nevada Advanced Opinion February 27, 2026.
In this case, an act of withholding was a substantial change in circumstances meeting the first prong to change physical custody in the State of Nevada. Thereafter, the District Court weighed the best interest factors of NRS § 125C.0035 (a) through (l) and determined that it was in the best interest of the minor child to change custody.
