When Can a Nevada Court Award Sole Physical Custody?
What Parents Need to Know After Roe v. Roe, 139 Nev. 163 (2023)
Nevada courts strongly prefer custody arrangements that allow children to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents. But sometimes one parent asks the court to award sole physical custody which is a much more restrictive arrangement.
In a recent Nevada appellate case called Roe v Roe, the Nevada Court of Appeals defined sole physical custody in Nevada for the first time.
What Is Sole Physical Custody?
Nevada courts recognize three types of physical custody: joint, primary, and sole. The court clarified:
“Sole physical custody” means the child lives with only one parent and the other parent has no significant in-person parenting time.
That definition matters because sometimes courts label an order “primary custody” when the parenting schedule is actually so restrictive that it functions as sole custody. The appellate court emphasized that courts must look at what the order actually does—not what it is called.
Why Sole Custody Is Hard to Obtain
Nevada law favors children having ongoing relationships with both parents. Courts must promote: “frequent associations and a continuing relationship” between parent and child.
Because of this policy, sole custody is considered a serious restriction on a parent’s rights. The court explained that such orders:
- significantly limit a parent’s constitutional rights,
- are very different from joint or primary custody,
- require extra legal safeguards before being granted and must meet stringent criteria supported by detailed findings of fact.
The Legal Standard a Judge Must Meet
Before awarding sole physical custody, a Nevada judge must do one of two things:
1. Find the Parent Is Unfit
The court can award sole custody if it finds the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to live with.
OR
2. Make Specific Written Findings
If the parent is not unfit, the judge must:
- explain why primary custody is not in the child’s best interest, and
- provide detailed written findings supporting that conclusion.
These findings must be separate from the usual best-interest analysis and must clearly justify why such a restrictive order is necessary.
Courts Must Use the Least Restrictive Option
Even if a judge determines that restrictions are needed, the law requires the court to choose the least restrictive parenting-time arrangement possible.
If the court rejects a less restrictive alternative—such as supervised visitation—it must explain why that option would not be in the child’s best interest.
Judges Cannot Delegate Custody Decisions
Another key lesson from the case: judges cannot hand custody authority to therapists or third parties.
The court held that deciding custody is a substantive judicial function that must remain with the judge—not a therapist or parenting coordinator.
What This Means for Parents
This case sends a strong message:
Sole physical custody is rare and legally demanding.
A judge cannot impose it casually or indirectly.
If you are facing a custody case, this decision means:
- A restrictive schedule may legally qualify as sole custody even if labeled differently.
- Courts must justify any severe restriction on parenting time.
- You have legal protections if a court limits your time without proper findings.
Practical Takeaway
If a court order, eliminates meaningful in-person time, or gives the other parent near-exclusive control. You should have a lawyer review whether it legally amounts to sole custody and whether the court followed Nevada’s required analysis. Nevada law strongly protects parent-child relationships. Sole physical custody is allowed—but only when strict legal standards are satisfied and fully explained. If you have questions about a custody order or believe your parenting rights have been improperly restricted, contact Surratt Law Practice to discuss your options and protect your relationship with your child
