share joint physical custody, the parent seeking to relocate outside of the
state is not eligible to petition for relocation under NRS 125C.200, and
must move for primary physical custody of the child for the purpose of
relocating, and the district court must apply the best interest of the child
standard. We conclude that Potter is analogous to the situation presented
here, where custody had not been finally established. Therefore, the
district court properly applied the best-interest-of-the-child standard. See
NRS 125.480(1) (stating that in determining child custody, the court's sole
consideration is the child's best interest). We further conclude that
appellant had an adequate opportunity to present evidence in accordance
with that standard.
Appellant next contends that the district court abused its
discretion in determining that it was in the child's best interest to award
primary physical custody to respondent in New Hampshire. Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in determining custody and visitation. See Wallace v. Wallace,
112 Nev. 1015, 1019, 922 P.2d 541, 543 (1996) (providing that child
custody decisions rest within the district court's sound discretion). The
district court considered the appropriate factors under NRS 125.480(4),
and the court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See
Rico v. Rodriguez, 121 Nev. 695, 701, 120 P.3d 812, 816 (2005).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
SUPREME COURT
OF
Parraguirre
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Eta:MEMBER=
cc: Hon. Charles J. Hoskin, District Judge, Family Court Division
Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge
The Firm, P.C.
Steinberg Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
IWNE SI 1 MIMI