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 the circumstances by which the District Court determined that the single act of withholding was an abduction.
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 found that Mother’s act of failing to exchange the child for a properly noticed vacation that commenced on or about March 15, 2023 was an act of detaining the minor child which was an abduction. As such, pursuant to NRS § 125C.0035 (7) a rebuttal presumption existed “that sole or joint physical custody or unsupervised visitation of the child by the perpetrator of the abduction is not in the best interest of the child.”
In its decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s Order regarding the abduction. Affirming the decision of the District Court means that the Court of Appeals upheld the decision. The Court of Appeals stated, “Under these circumstances, Luba's contention that her withholding of LG. was not “willful” because she was acting “in the best interests of her child based on her safety concerns and upon the advice of her counsel” is unavailing. Dace v. Velazquez-Gonzalez, Nevada Advanced Opinion February 27, 2026. The Court of Appeals went on to define detain, using the common definition of “to hold or keep in or as if in custody.” Id. The Court of Appeals opined that Mother’s act of holding or keeping custody, even though the exchange was required by Court Order, was an in fact an act of abduction. Id.
It was next argued by Mother, that a single act of withholding was insufficient to find abduction. Id. NRS § 125.0035 (10)(a) defines abduction as “an act described in NRS 200.310 to 200.340, inclusive, or 200.359 or a law of any other jurisdiction that prohibits the same or similar conduct.” Therefore, a single act was sufficient because the statute provides that a single act was sufficient. Dace v. Velazquez-Gonzalez, Nevada Advanced Opinion February 27, 2026.
Therefore, a single action of withholding may be considered an act of abduction by the District Court which may then create a rebuttal presumption impacting physical custody and timeshare.