512 South 8th Street   |   Las Vegas, NV 89101   |   Telephone: (702) 432-8655   Facsimile: (702) 432-8715    Map To Office













Family Law


A significant part of the emotional stress of divorce is being involved in something that you do not understand. Divorce often unleashes a variety of fears and concerns that can result in the inability to think clearly about financial settlements, personal needs, and the needs of your children. Lyons Law Firm provides experienced attorneys and caring staff to perform legal work for you during this emotional process. We give your legal problems our dedicated personal attention to attempt to achieve the best possible result.

It is estimated that over 50% of the population will get divorced at one time or another during their life. In Nevada there are two types of divorce Uncontested and Contested. An Uncontested Divorce is where the parties agree on all of the terms of the divorce, the documents necessary to get divorced are signed by the parties and the Court grants a divorce. For uncontested cases, some law firms in Nevada will prepare and submit Joint Petitions for Divorce and attempt to represent both parties. Lyons Law Firm will not prepare a Joint Petition. Rather we represent one party. That way, when our client’s are negotiating with their spouse they have our advise as to the various terms to negotiate. Once they have negotiated the terms with their spouse we then prepare the following documents in order for the parties to get divorced on an uncontested basis:

  1. Civil Cover Sheet;
  2. Complaint for Divorce;
  3. Answer in Proper Person;
  4. Decree of Divorce;
  5. Affidavit of Plaintiff;
  6. Affidavit of Resident Witness;
  7. Confidential Statement of Social Security Numbers;
  8. Request for Summary Disposition.

In the event there are minor children, rather than preparing a Confidential Statement of Social Security Numbers the following documents must be prepared:

  1. Notice of Program Completion - EDCR 5.07 (for each party);
  2. Child Support and Welfare Party Identification Sheet (for each party).

In the event the parties cannot agree to the terms of divorce, a contested divorce case then occurs. Contested cases can be very expensive. However, they are often required to fairly and equally divide community assets and debts. Furthermore, many times contested cases are required in order to ensure that child custody is properly determined.

In 2008 there were over 7,000 Temporary Protective Orders issued in Clark County, Nevada. A Temporary Protective Order may be issued for acts of domestic violence. Nevada Revised statute 33.018 defines acts which constitute domestic violence and states:

Acts which constitute domestic violence. Domestic violence occurs when a person commits one of the following against or upon another to whom he is related by blood or marriage, with whom he is or was actually residing or with whom he has a child in common, or upon his minor child or a minor child of that person:

1. Battery.
2. An assult.
3. Compelling the other by force or threat of force to perform an act from which
     he has the right to refrain or to refrain from an act which;he has the right to
    perform.
4. A sexual assault.
5. A knowing, purposeful or reckless course of conduct to harass the other.
6. A false imprisonment.
7. Unlawful entry of the other's residence, or forcible entry against the other's will if there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to the other from the entry.

In the event you need a protective order due to domestic violence do not call an attorney, immediately contact the police department (911) to report the crime or the Clark County Violence Intervention Program & Protection Orders 702.455.3400 or the After Hours Protection Order Hotline 702.646.4981. Then determine if you need an attorney.

A growing trend in the United States is for individuals to cohabitate rather then marry. This creates tremendous problems when the relationship ends. Nevada has adopted the concept of "quasi community property" or "community property by analogy." In Western States Const., Inc. v. Michoff, 108 Nev. 931, 937-938, 840 P.2d 1220, 1224 (Nev.1992), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

Unmarried couples who cohabit have the same rights to lawfully contract with each other regarding their property as do other unmarried individuals. Id. Thus this court must protect the reasonable expectations of unmarried cohabitants with respect to transactions concerning their property rights. We therefore adopted, in Hay, the rule that unmarried cohabitants will not be denied access to the courts to make property claims against each other merely because they are not married. Id. In Hay, we cited with approval the holding in Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660, 134 Cal.Rptr. 815, 557 P.2d 106 (1976), which provided:

The courts should enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except to the extent that the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of meretricious sexual services.... In the absence of an express contract, the courts should inquire into the conduct of the parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates an implied contract, agreement or partnership or joint venture, or some other tacit understanding between the parties. The courts may also employ the doctrine of quantum meruit, or equitable remedies such as constructive trust or resulting trusts, when warranted by the facts of the case.

Hay, 100 Nev. at 199, 678 P.2d at 674 (quoting Marvin, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 819, 557 P.2d at 110). We then expressly held that the remedies in Marvin are available to unmarried cohabitants. Id. As stated in Marvin, adults who voluntarily live together "may agree to pool their earnings and to hold all property acquired during the relationship in accord with the law governing community property.quot; Marvin, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 825, 557 P.2d at 116 (emphasis added).

The Court then went on to state:

Marvin, however, strongly supports our statement in Hay that the community property law may apply by analogy. While unmarried couples cannot actually own community property, this is so only because community property is a creature of statute which arises after a couple is legally married. See NRS 123.220. Yet unmarried couples are not precluded from holding their property as though they were married. See Marvin, 134 Cal.Rptr. at 825, 557 P.2d at 116. In such a case, the community property law can apply by analogy. Hay, 100 Nev. at 199, 678 P.2d at 674. Thus we hold that unmarried cohabiting adults may agree to hold property that they acquire as though it were community property.

In Michoff, the cohabiting parties built and developed a business together based on an implied agreement of coequal ownership. The woman was an integral part of the business, even being listed as sole owner for a time in order to increase the chances of getting contracts. They held themselves out as husband and wife, even filing joint tax returns and designating their holdings as community property. As a result the court held that it would have been inequitable not to enforce the agreement of the parties for coequal ownership, allowing the woman to receive her share of their assets, when the relationship ended. It is doubtful that the Nevada Supreme Court would allow the division of "quasi community property" held in one individual’s name if they did not hold themselves out as husband and wife, don’t file joint tax returns, don’t have joint wills, etc.

Indeed, in Gilman v. Gilman, 114 Nev. 416, 956 P.2d 761 (Nev.1998), the Nevada Supreme Court stated that:

The Michoff case was one in which the cohabiting parties built and developed a business together based on an implied agreement of coequal ownership. The woman was an integral part of the business, even being listed as sole owner for a time in order to increase the chances of getting contracts. They held themselves out as husband and wife, even filing joint tax returns and designating their holdings as community property. It would certainly have been inequitable not to enforce the agreement of the parties for coequal ownership, allowing the woman to receive her share of their assets, when the relationship ended. The cohabitation element of the relationship was virtually incidental.

A mother always knows she gave birth and that her son or daughter is her child. However, a man may believe that he is the father, but cannot know for certain unless paternity is established. Nevada allows paternity to be established several ways. Nevada Revised Statute 126.051 states:

   1. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if:

(a) He and the child’s natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage, or within 285 days after the marriage is terminated by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity or divorce, or after a decree of separation is entered by a court.

(b) He and the child’s natural mother were cohabiting for at least 6 months before the period of conception and continued to cohabit through the period of conception.

(c) Before the child’s birth, he and the child’s natural mother have attempted to marry each other by a marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law, although the attempted marriage is invalid or could be declared invalid, and:

(1) If the attempted marriage could be declared invalid only by a court, the child is born during the attempted marriage, or within 285 days after its termination by death, annulment, declaration of invalidity or divorce; or

(2) If the attempted marriage is invalid without a court order, the child is born within 285 days after the termination of cohabitation.

(d) While the child is under the age of majority, he receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child.

(e) Blood tests or tests for genetic identification made pursuant to NRS 126.121 show a probability of 99 percent or more that he is the father.

   2. A presumption under this section may be rebutted in an appropriate action only by clear and
   convincing evidence. If two or more presumptions arise which conflict with each other, the
   presumption which on the facts is founded on the weightier considerations of policy and logic
   controls. The presumption is rebutted by a court decree establishing paternity of the child by
   another man.

However, unless paternity is established through DNA testing, the father of the child can raise in the future allegations of fraud and seek reimbursement of child support which he has paid. In Love v. Love, 114 Nev. 572, 959 P.2d 523 (1998), the Nevada Supreme Court remanded for further proceeding the issue of whether the mother had committed extrinsic fraud when DNA testing nine years subsequent to the divorce established that the minor child was unrelated to the father. Therefore, simultaneous with obtaining an initial child support order the parties should establish paternity through DNA testing.

Nevada Revised Statute 126.071(1) states who and when an action for paternity may be brought. In particular, it states:

A child, his natural mother, a man presumed or alleged to be his father or an interested third party may bring an action pursuant to this chapter to declare the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship.

Finally, Nevada Revised Statue 126.121 should be reformated as follows:

1. The court may, and shall upon the motion of a party, order the mother, child, alleged father or any other person so involved to submit to one or more tests for the typing of blood or taking of specimens for genetic identification to be made by a designated person, by qualified physicians or by other qualified persons, under such restrictions and directions as the court or judge deems proper. Whenever such a test is ordered and made, the results of the test must be received in evidence and must be made available to a judge, master or referee conducting a hearing pursuant to NRS 126.111. The results of the test and any sample or specimen taken may be used only for the purposes specified in this chapter. Unless a party files a written objection to the result of a test at least 30 days before the hearing at which the result is to be received in evidence, the result is admissible as evidence of paternity without foundational testimony or other proof of authenticity or accuracy. The order for such a test also may direct that the testimony of the experts and of the persons so examined may be taken by deposition or written interrogatories.

2. If any party refuses to submit to or fails to appear for a test ordered pursuant to subsection 1, the court may presume that the result of the test would be adverse to the interests of that party or may enforce its order if the rights of others and the interests of justice so require.

Once DNA testing establishes paternity, the parties can then establish custody, visitation and child support. While a paternity test is pending many courts will establish temporary custody, visitation and child support orders.

The sole consideration of the Court to determine custody is the best interest of the child. See Nevada Revised Statute 125.480(1). Historically, Courts always granted custody to the mother using the maternal preference doctrine. However, Nevada has rejected the maternal preference doctrine and as a matter of law, preference may not be given to either parent for the sole reasons that the parent is the mother or the father of the child. See Nevada Revised Statute 125.480(2). In determining custody the Court can award custody to both parents jointly or to either parent. When awarding custody to either parent among the factors the Court must consider which parent is more likely to allow the child to have frequent associations and a continuing relationship with the non-custodial parent. However, there is a rebuttable presumption that the perpetrator of domestic violence should not be awarded primary physical custody and/or joint physical custody of the child. See Nevada Revised Statute 125.480(5). Custody is a complicated issue, there are numerous other factors that can affect custody, these include but are not limited to, drug abuse and/or sexual crimes.

In Nevada, Child Support is set by statute and based upon the income of the parents. In the event a parent is awarded primary physical custody, that parent is statutorily entitled to child support. Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute 125B.070 child support is set as follows:

1. As used in this section and NRS 125B.080, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “Gross monthly income” means the total amount of income received each month from any source of a person who is not self-employed or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person, after deduction of all legitimate business expenses, but without deduction for personal income taxes, contributions for retirement benefits, contributions to a pension or for any other personal expenses.

(b) “Obligation for support” means the sum certain dollar amount determined according to the following schedule:

(1) For one child, 18 percent;
(2) For two children, 25 percent;
(3) For three children, 29 percent;
(4) For four children, 31 percent; and
(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent,

of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth for the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080.

2. For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection 1, the presumptive maximum amount per month per child for an obligation for support, as adjusted pursuant to subsection 3, is:[1]

Income Range                      Presumptive Maximum Amount


The presumptive maximum amount set forth herein was issued by the Administrative Office of the Courts April 1, 2004 in accordance with the provisions of NRS 125B.070 (3) and is for the time period, July 1, 2004 - June 30, 2005.

If the Parents GrossMonthly
Income is at Least
But Less Than
The Presumptive Maximum Amount.
Amount the Parent May be Required
to Pay per Month per Child Pursuant to
Paragraph (b) Subsection 1 is
0
4,235
6,351
8,467
10,585
12,701
14,816
4,235
6,351
8,467
10,585
12,701
14,816
No Limit
530
583
637
689
742
795
849

If a parent’s gross monthly income is equal to or greater than $14,816, the presumptive maximum amount the parent may be required to pay pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 is $849.
3. The presumptive maximum amounts set forth in subsection 2 for the obligation for support must be adjusted on July 1 of each year for the fiscal year beginning that day and ending June 30 in a rounded dollar amount corresponding to the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) published by the United States Department of Labor for the preceding calendar year. On April 1 of each year, the Office of Court Administrator shall determine the amount of the increase or decrease required by this subsection, establish the adjusted amounts to take effect on July 1 of that year and notify each district court of the adjusted amounts.
4. As used in this section, “Office of Court Administrator” means the Office of Court Administrator created pursuant to NRS 1.320.

There are factors that the courts can use to deviate from the statutory formula. In particular, Nevada Revised Statute 125B.080(9) states:

The court shall consider the following factors when adjusting the amount of support of a child upon specific findings of fact:
(a) The cost of health insurance;
(b) The cost of child care;
(c) Any special educational needs of the child;
(d) The age of the child;
(e) The legal responsibility of the parents for the support of others;
(f) The value of services contributed by either parent;
(g) Any public assistance paid to support the child;
(h) Any expenses reasonably related to the mother’s pregnancy and confinement;
(i) The cost of transportation of the child to and from visitation if the custodial parent moved with the child from the jurisdiction of the court which ordered the support and the noncustodial parent remained;
(j) The amount of time the child spends with each parent;
(k) Any other necessary expenses for the benefit of the child; and
(l) The relative income of both parents.

In the event Joint Physical Custody is awarded to the parties, child support is decided differently. In Wesley v. Foster, 65 P.3d 251, 253, 119 Nev. , (2003), the Nevada Supreme Court addressed the issue of Joint Physical Custody when there is a disparity of income. The Court stated:

In this case, there is a disparity in the gross monthly income of the two parents. Consistent with our holding in Wright, Wesley's percentage of gross monthly income should first be subtracted from Foster's percentage of gross monthly income. [FN11] Then, after this offset is made, the cap should be applied. [FN12] "Of course, the district court also has the option to adjust the amount of the award where special circumstances exist." [FN13]

FN11. 18% of $1,417.00 = $255.06. 18% of $5,417.00 = $975.06. Applying the offset, $975.06 minus $255.06 = $720.00, Foster's child support obligation prior to application of the cap.

FN12. The version of NRS 125B.070 in effect at the time of the petition for modification provided a $500 cap. Therefore, Foster's obligation for support payments to Wesley is $500 per month.

FN13. Wright, 114 Nev. at 1369, 970 P.2d at 1072 (citing NRS 125B.080(9)).

The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that child custody cannot be used to tie one parent to the state of Nevada. However, the Court has also refused to allow a parent to relocate when the parent was relocating for the purpose of frustrating the non-custodial parents visitation rights. See Mason v. Mason, 115 Nev. 68, 975 P.2d 340 (1999). However, disruption of a non-custodial parent's visitation schedule by itself is an insufficient basis for denying a removal petition. See Gandee v. Gandee, 111 Nev. 754, 895 P.2d 1285 (1995).

In Schwartz v. Schwartz, 107 Nev. 378, 382, 812 P.2d 1268, 1271 (1991), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

In removing a child from the jurisdiction where the child currently lives, the best interests of the child should also be the paramount judicial concern. See In re Marriage of Kutinac, 182 Ill.App.3d 377, 131 Ill.Dec. 487, 490, 538 N.E.2d 862, 865 (1989); Ducheneaux v. Ducheneaux, 427 N.W.2d 122, 123 (S.D.1988); D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio, 144 N.J.Super. 200, 365 A.2d 27, 29 (Ch.Div.1976). Determination of the best interests of a child in the removal context necessarily involves a fact-specific inquiry and cannot be reduced to a rigid "bright-line" test. See In re Marriage of Eckert, 119 Ill.2d 316, 116 Ill.Dec. 220, 224, 518 N.E.2d 1041, 1045 (1988) (citations omitted); Cooper v. Cooper, 99 N.J. 42, 491 A.2d 606, 614-15 (1984).

The Court then stated:

[I]n determining the issue of removal, the court must first find whether the custodial parent has demonstrated that an actual advantage will be realized by both the children and the custodial parent in moving to a location so far removed from the current residence that weekly visitation by the noncustodial parent is virtually precluded.

If the custodial parent satisfies the threshold requirement set forth above, then the court must weigh the following additional factors and their impact on all members of the family, including the extent to which the compelling interests of each member of the family are accommodated: (1) the extent to which the move is likely to improve the quality of life for both the children and the custodial parent; (2) whether the custodial parent's motives are honorable, and not designed to frustrate or defeat visitation rights accorded to the noncustodial parent; (3) whether, if permission to remove is granted, the custodial parent will comply with any substitute visitation orders issued by the court; (4) whether the noncustodian's motives are honorable in resisting the motion for permission to remove, or to what extent, if any, the opposition is intended to secure a financial advantage in the form of ongoing support obligations or otherwise; (5) whether, if removal is allowed, there will be a realistic opportunity for the noncustodial parent to maintain a visitation schedule that will adequately foster and preserve the parental relationship with the noncustodial parent.

In weighing and balancing the above factors, the court will, of course, have to consider any number of sub-factors that may assist the court in reaching an appropriate decision. For example, in determining whether, and the extent to which the move will likely improve the quality of life for the children and the custodial parent, the court may require evidence concerning such matters as: (1) whether positive family care and support, including that of the extended family, will be enhanced; (2) whether housing and environmental living conditions will be improved; (3) whether educational advantages for the children will result; (4) whether the custodial parent's employment and income will improve; (5) whether special needs of a child, medical or otherwise, will be better served; and (6) whether, in the child's opinion, circumstances and relationships will be improved. The foregoing list is by no means exhaustive, and is only illustrative of the many sub-factors that the court may, in the exercise of good common sense, feel the need to pursue prior to ruling on the issue of removal. In certain instances, the court may even conclude that a professional opinion or evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist will be desirable in assessing the impact of the move on a child.

Schwartz, 107 Nev. at 382 - 383, 812 P.2d at 1271 - 1272.

Nevada Revised Statute 125.150(1)(a)states that in granting a divorce, the court:

May award such alimony to the wife or to the husband, in a specified principal sum or as specified periodic payments, as appears just and equitable.

Nevada Revised Statute 125.150 goes on to state in pertinent part:

4. In granting a divorce, the court may also set apart such portion of the husband’s separate property for the wife’s support, the wife’s separate property for the husband’s support or the separate property of either spouse for the support of their children as is deemed just and equitable.

5. In the event of the death of either party or the subsequent remarriage of the spouse to whom specified periodic payments were to be made, all the payments required by the decree must cease, unless it was otherwise ordered by the court.

6. If the court adjudicates the property rights of the parties, or an agreement by the parties settling their property rights has been approved by the court, whether or not the court has retained jurisdiction to modify them, the adjudication of property rights, and the agreements settling property rights, may nevertheless at any time thereafter be modified by the court upon written stipulation signed and acknowledged by the parties to the action, and in accordance with the terms thereof.

7. If a decree of divorce, or an agreement between the parties which was ratified, adopted or approved in a decree of divorce, provides for specified periodic payments of alimony, the decree or agreement is not subject to modification by the court as to accrued payments. Payments pursuant to a decree entered on or after July 1, 1975, which have not accrued at the time a motion for modification is filed may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances, whether or not the court has expressly retained jurisdiction for the modification. In addition to any other factors the court considers relevant in determining whether to modify the order, the court shall consider whether the income of the spouse who is ordered to pay alimony, as indicated on the spouse’s federal income tax return for the preceding calendar year, has been reduced to such a level that the spouse is financially unable to pay the amount of alimony he has been ordered to pay.

8. In granting a divorce the court shall consider the need to grant alimony to a spouse for the purpose of obtaining training or education relating to a job, career or profession. In addition to any other factors the court considers relevant in determining whether such alimony should be granted, the court shall consider:

(a) Whether the spouse who would pay such alimony has obtained greater job skills or education during the marriage; and

(b) Whether the spouse who would receive such alimony provided financial support while the other spouse obtained job skills or education.

9. If the court determines that alimony should be awarded pursuant to the provisions of subsection 8:

(a) The court, in its order, shall provide for the time within which the spouse who is the recipient of the alimony must commence the training or education relating to a job, career or profession.

(b) The spouse who is ordered to pay the alimony may, upon changed circumstances, file a motion to modify the order.

(c) The spouse who is the recipient of the alimony may be granted, in addition to any other alimony granted by the court, money to provide for:

(1) Testing of the recipient’s skills relating to a job, career or profession;

(2) Evaluation of the recipient’s abilities and goals relating to a job, career or profession;

(3) Guidance for the recipient in establishing a specific plan for training or education relating to a job, career or profession;

(4) Subsidization of an employer’s costs incurred in training the recipient;

(5) Assisting the recipient to search for a job; or

(6) Payment of the costs of tuition, books and fees for:

(I) The equivalent of a high school diploma;

(II) College courses which are directly applicable to the recipient’s goals for his career; or

(III) Courses of training in skills desirable for employment.

10. For the purposes of this section, a change of 20 percent or more in the gross monthly income of a spouse who is ordered to pay alimony shall be deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring a review for modification of the payments of alimony. As used in this subsection, “gross monthly income” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 125B.070.

In Heim v. Heim, 104 Nev. 605, 763 P.2d 678 (1988)(overturned on other grounds) the Nevada Supreme Court held that the District Judge must, in making alimony decisions, "Form a judgment as to what is equitable and just, having regard to the respective merits of the parties and to the condition of which they will be left by divorce." Id. at 609, 763 P.2d at 680. However, as the Nevada Supreme Court so aptly stated in Heim, divorces should not become a “handy vehicle for the summary disposal of old and used wives. A woman is not a breeding cow to be nurtured during her years of fecundity, then conveniently and economically converted to cheap steaks when past her prime.” Id. at 611, 793 P.2d at 682 (quoting In re Marriage of Brantner, 67 Cal.App.3d 416, 419, 136 Cal.Rptr. 635, 637 (1977)). The Nevada Supreme Court then stated:

[I]n those cases in which it is the decision of the parties that the woman becomes the homemaker, the marriage of substantial duration and at separation the wife is to all intents and purposes unemployable, the husband simply has to face up to the fact that his support responsibilities are going to be of extended duration–perhaps for life. This has nothing to do with feminism, sexism, male chauvinism or any other trendy social ideology. It is ordinary common sense, basic decency and simple justice.

Id. at 611 - 612, 793 P.2d at 682 (quoting In re Marriage of Brantner, 67 Cal.App.3d at 420, 136 Cal.Rptr. at 637 (1977)). In Sprenger v. Sprenger, 110 Nev. 855, 859, 878 P.2d 284, 287 (1994), the Nevada Supreme Court stated:

This court has articulated seven relevant factors in determining the appropriate alimony award in divorce case: (1) the wife’s career prior to marriage; (2) the length of the marriage; (3) the husband’s education during the marriage; (4) the wife’s marketability; (5) the wife’s ability to support herself; (6) whether the wife stayed home with the children; and (7) the wife’s award, besides child support and alimony. Fondi v. Fondi, 106 Nev. 856, 862-64, 802 P.2d 1264, 1267-69 (1990).

Nevada requires an equal distribution of community assets and debts. Nevada Revised Statute 125.150(1)(b) states that in granting a divorce, the court:

(b) Shall, to the extent practicable, make an equal disposition of the community property of the parties, except that the court may make an unequal disposition of the community property in such proportions as it deems just if the court finds a compelling reason to do so and sets forth in writing the reasons for making the unequal disposition.

Furthermore, when a party is divorced the Court must also equally divide real property held as Joint Tenants. However,

a party has made a contribution of separate property to the acquisition or improvement of property held in joint tenancy, the court may provide for the reimbursement of that party for his contribution. The amount of reimbursement must not exceed the amount of the contribution of separate property that can be traced to the acquisition or improvement of property held in joint tenancy, without interest or any adjustment because of an increase in the value of the property held in joint tenancy. The amount of reimbursement must not exceed the value, at the time of the disposition, of the property held in joint tenancy for which the contribution of separate property was made. In determining whether to provide for the reimbursement, in whole or in part, of a party who has contributed separate property, the court shall consider:

(a) The intention of the parties in placing the property in joint tenancy;

(b) The length of the marriage; and

(c) Any other factor which the court deems relevant in making a just and equitable disposition of that property.

As used in this subsection, “contribution” includes a down payment, a payment for the acquisition or improvement of property, and a payment reducing the principal of a loan used to finance the purchase or improvement of property. The term does not include a payment of interest on a loan used to finance the purchase or improvement of property, or a payment made for maintenance, insurance or taxes on property.

See Nevada Revised Statute 125.150(2).

The other common asset which must be divided are the parties’ pensions. In Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 462-463, 778 P.2d 429, 432 (1989), the Nevada Supreme Court held that the "time rule" should be used by the district court in determining the community interest in a retirement plan. The Court explained that under the time rule the community interest is represented by a fraction, the numerator of which is the time the parties were married, the denominator is the total time worked before full retirement benefits may be received. Id. at 461, 778 P.2d at 431. Therefore, the Court uses the name "time rule," since the community share is directly proportionate to the amount of "time" the parties were married.

In Gemma, the Nevada Supreme Court did not simply adopt the "time rule," it also mandated that the community share of benefits must be measured using the "wait and see" approach. Id. at 462, 778 P.2d at 431. More specifically, the Court held that the community gains an interest in the pension ultimately received by the employee spouse, not simply the pension that would be recovered were the spouse to retire at the time of divorce. Id. at 462, 778 P.2d at 432 (emphasis added). Because the size of the ultimate benefits are unknown to the court at the time it renders its decision, the parties must therefore "wait and see" to determine the size of the actual community benefit.

At one time prenuptial agreements were just for celebrities and the extremely rich. Now they are becoming part of the wedding planning regardless of whether or not one is wealthy or a celebrity. Today people entering into their first marriage will typically enter into a prenuptial agreement where one or both of the parties come from wealthy families, and it is important to protect premarital assets and/or future inheritances or where one party has a business which he or she wishes to protect. People who were widowed or divorced often entered into a prenuptial agreement to protect children from a prior relationship, ensure that they retain property which they owned prior to marriage and to protect each other from the other parties' debts.

Due to the highly emotional nature of divorce, time and time again we have seen parties spend thousands of dollars litigating over, all things considered, de minimus property. This cost can be significantly reduced and/or eliminated through the use of prenuptial and/or postnuptial agreements. Indeed, a prenuptial agreement can save time and eliminate significant animosity in the event of a divorce by clearly setting forth the property of each spouse prior to the marriage and how property acquired during marriage is to be divided. Generally, the more time that has passed between signing a prenuptial agreement and the actual wedding, the more likely it is that the courts will uphold your prenuptial agreement. In the event you are married, the same issues can be set forth in a postnuptial agreement. A postnuptial agreement is a contract entered into by spouses which identifies pre-marital property and debt, and identifies and divides post-marital property and debts.

Nevada Adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act in 1989. See Nev. R. Stat. 123A et. seq. A Premarital Agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties. Furthermore, it is enforceable without consideration. Nev. R. Stat. 123A.040.

Parties to a premarital agreement may contract with respect to:

(a) The rights and obligations of each of the parties in any of the property of either or both of them whenever and wherever acquired or located;

(b) The right to buy, sell, use, transfer, exchange, abandon, lease, consume, expend, assign, create a security interest in, mortgage, encumber, dispose of, or otherwise manage and control property;

(c) The disposition of property upon separation, marital dissolution, death, or the occurrence or nonoccurrence of any other event;

(d) The modification or elimination of alimony or support or maintenance of a spouse;

(e) The making of a will, trust or other arrangement to carry out the provisions of the agreement;

(f) The ownership rights in and disposition of the death benefit from a life insurance policy;

(g) The choice of law governing the construction of the agreement; and

(h) Any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty.

Nev. R. Stat. 123A.050(1). However, the right of a child to support may not be adversely affected by a premarital agreement. Nev. R. Stat. 123A.050(2). Furthermore, in the event the premarital agreement eliminates alimony, and the elimination of alimony would make the person who is then being denied alimony at the time of divorce eligible for public assistance, a court can disregard the prevision eliminating alimony to the extent necessary to avoid that eligibility. Nev. R. Stat. 123.080(2).

A Premarital Agreement is not enforceable, against a party whom enforcement is sought, if that party proves that:

1. A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that:

(a) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily;

(b) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed; or

(c) Before execution of the agreement, that party:

(1) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party;

(2) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and

(3) Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.

Nev. R. Stat. 123A.080(1). Furthermore, the Court decides, as a matter of law, whether the agreement was unconscionable when it was executed. Nev. R. Stat. 123A.080(3). Finally. "[a]ny statute of limitations applicable to an action asserting a claim for relief under a premarital agreement is tolled during the marriage of the parties to the agreement. However, equitable defenses limiting the time for enforcement, including laches and estoppel, are available to either party." Nev. R. Stat. 123A.100.

Incorrectly prepared prenuptial and/or postnuptial agreements can adversely affect your life and your financial well being. Lyons Law Firm can help you with all of your needs regarding this difficult and emotional issue. Please contact Lyons Law Firm to arrange a consultation to help you resolve these issues in a timely manner.

Domesticating an International Adoption is often erroneously referred to as an "international adoption", when, if fact, is it unlawful t the new parents adopt a child who is a citizen of a foreign country. In addition to satisfying the adoption requirements of both the foreign country and the parents' home state in the U.S., the parents must obtain an immigrant visa for the child through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS, formerly called the INS). The child will be granted U.S. citizenship automatically upon entering the United States.

Orphan petitions are the most common way of bringing foreign adopted and prospective adoptive children to the United States. However, adoption of a foreign-born child does not guarantee the child's eligibility to immigrate to the United States. The adoptive parent(s) must comply with the U.S. immigration law and legal regulatory procedures. There is no way an orphan can legally immigrate to the United States without Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) processing.

INS regulations require that all foreign adoptions undergo an investigation to guarantee compliance with the laws of both the United States and foreign sending country. When necessary, an overseas investigation is initiated. This investigation can cause delays in adjudicating the case. Prospective adoptive parents are advised to retain a reputable agency with foreign adoption experience or competent legal representation in their efforts to bring foreign-born children to the United States. INS places a priority on processing adoption petitions. Many INS field offices have assigned individual officers and clerks to process orphan petitions and respond to inquiries from the petitioners concerning the status of their case. Prospective adoptive parents are encouraged to go through their adoption agencies for guidance and insight on the immigration of orphan and adopted children. The U.S. Department of State's Office of Children's Issues coordinates policy and provides information to the public on international adoptions, including country-specific data.

A. The Fastest Way to Domesticate a Foreign Adoption

An advance processing application may be filed before a specific child has been identified. The prospective adoptive parents must then locate a child to adopt who can be classified as an orphan according to the U.S. immigration law. Subsequently, an orphan petition must be filed on behalf of the child.

1) Advance Processing Forms:

1The U.S. immigration law refers to Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

a. Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of Orphan Petition. The purpose of this application is to complete the part of the process relating to the prospective petitioner before a child is identified.

b. Proof of the prospective petitioner's U.S. citizenship, and if the petitioner is married and residing in the United States, proof of the spouse's U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration status.

c. Fingerprints for each prospective adoptive parent and each adult member of the prospective adoptive parents' household on Form FD-258. If the prospective adoptive parent(s) are in the United States, INS will schedule fingerprinting appointments after receiving the application. If the prospective adoptive parent(s) are abroad, fingerprints may be taken at a U.S. embassy, consulate, U.S. military installation or INS office.

d. Proof of the marriage of the prospective petitioner and spouse, if married.

e. Proof of the legal termination of any prior marriages of the prospective petitioner and spouse or unmarried prospective petitioner, if applicable.

f. Proof of compliance with pre-adoption requirements, if any, of the state of the child's proposed residence.

g. A favorably recommended home study. The home study must be submitted within one year of the filing of the advanced processing application.

h. Required filing fee.

See, The Immigration of Adopted and Prospective Adoptive Children, US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, M-249 (Revised September, 2000)N.
It is important to note that

2) Orphan Petition

a. Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative.

b. Proof of approval of the I-600A.

c. Proof of the child's age and identity.

d. Proof that the child is an orphan as appropriate:

a. proof that the child has been abandoned or deserted by, separated or lost from, both parents or that both parents have disappeared or died;

b. death certificate(s) of the child's parent(s), if applicable;

c. proof that the child's sole or surviving parent cannot give the child proper care and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption;

d. proof that the child has been unconditionally abandoned to an orphanage, if the child is in an orphanage.

e. If there was no adoption abroad, proof that the pre-adoption requirements, if any, of the state of the child's proposed residence have been met. This is also required if the child has been adopted abroad, but the adoption is not full and final, or if the unmarried adoptive parent, or both married adoptive parents, did not personally see the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings.

f. If there was no adoption abroad, proof that the prospective adoptive parent(s) have, or a person or entity working on behalf of the parent(s) has, legal custody of the child for emigration and adoption in the United States.

g. If the child was adopted abroad, a final decree of adoption must be submitted. For the adoption to be recognized as full and final, proof must be submitted verifying that the unmarried adoptive parent, or both married adoptive parents, saw the child prior to or during adoption proceedings. If only one married adoptive parent or no adoptive parent saw the child, procedures outlined in letter "e" above must then be followed.

See, The Immigration of Adopted and Prospective Adoptive Children, US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, M-249 (Revised September, 2000)N. It is important to note that, if the I-600 is filed while an advance processing application is pending or within 18 months after a favorable decision in a completed advance processing case, no new filing fee is required.

B. The Lengthy Way to Domesticate an International Adoption

Akin to the speedy process outlined above, the prospective adoptive parents must first locate a child to adopt who can be classified as an orphan according to the U.S. immigration law. An orphan petition must then be filed on behalf of the orphan; the process of which follows:

1. Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative.

2. Fingerprints for each adoptive or prospective adoptive parent and each adult member of the adoptive or prospective adoptive parents' household on Form FD-258. If the adoptive or prospective adoptive parent(s) are in the United States, INS will schedule fingerprinting appointments after receiving the application. If the adoptive or prospective adoptive parent(s) are abroad, fingerprints may be taken at a U.S. embassy, consulate, U.S. military installation or INS office. A complete definition of "adult member" can be found in Appendix B.

3. Proof of the petitioner's U.S. citizenship, and if the petitioner is married and residing in the United States, proof of the spouse's U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration status.

4. Proof of the marriage of the petitioner and spouse, if married.

5. Proof of the legal termination of any prior marriages of the petitioner and spouse or unmarried petitioner, if applicable.

6. Proof of compliance with pre-adoption requirements, if any, of the state of the child's proposed residence.

7. A favorably recommended home study that meets the requirements of the US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

8. Required filing fee.

9. Proof of child's age and identity.

10. Proof that the child is an orphan as appropriate:

a. proof that the orphan has been abandoned or deserted by, separated or lost from, both parents or that both parents have disappeared or died;

b. death certificate(s) of the child's parent(s), if applicable;

c. proof that the child's sole or surviving parent is unable to provide for the child's basic needs, consistent with the local standards of the foreign sending country and has, in writing, irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption;

d. proof that the child has been unconditionally abandoned to an orphanage, if the child is in an orphanage.

11. If there was no adoption abroad, proof that the pre-adoption requirements, if any, of the state of the child's proposed residence have been met. This is also required if the child has been adopted abroad, but the adoption is not full and final, or if the unmarried adoptive parent, or both married adoptive parents, did not personally see the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings.

12. If there was no adoption abroad, proof that the prospective parent(s) have, or a person or entity working on behalf of the parent(s) has, legal custody of the child for emigration and adoption in the United States.

13. If the child was adopted abroad, a final decree of adoption must be submitted. For an adoption to be recognized as full and final, evidence must be submitted that the unmarried adoptive parent, or both married adoptive parents, saw the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings. If only one married adoptive parent or no adoptive parent saw the child, procedures outlined in number "11" above must then be followed.

See, The Immigration of Adopted and Prospective Adoptive Children, US Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, M-249 (Revised September, 2000)N.

If the orphan was adopted abroad, the petitioner must prove that both the married petitioner and spouse, or the unmarried petitioner, personally saw the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings. It is important to note that viewing a video or observing a photograph of a child does not constitute "personally seeing" the child. The married petitioner and spouse must adopt the child jointly, or the unmarried petitioner must be a least 25 years of age at the time of the adoption. Additionally, many foreign countries set forth additional requirements/limitations to adoption of their citizen children by foreign persons. Prior to beginning an international adoption you should contact an attorney licensed in the County from which you wish to adopt a child to determine what are its additional requirements/limitations.

For example, in early 2009 a judge rejected Madonna's request to adopt a second child from Malawi, stating that it would set a dangerous precedent to bend rules requiring that prospective parents live in the country for some period. Judge Esme Chombo sided with critics who have said exceptions should not be made for the star who has set up a major development project for this impoverished, AIDS-stricken southern African country. Judge Chombo said other foreigners have adopted children from Malawi, but the only case in which some residency requirement was waived was to allow Madonna to take David Banda out of the country in 2006 before that adoption was finalized in 2008.

"It is necessary that we look beyond the petitioner ... and consider the consequences of opening the doors too wide," the judge said. "By removing the very safeguard that is supposed to protect our children, the courts ... could actually facilitate trafficking of children by some unscrupulous individuals." The judge went on to state that the girl Madonna wants to adopt was receiving "suitable" care in an orphanage. The judge said that contrasted with David's, Madonna's first adopted son from Malawi, situation in 2006, when an orphanage was preparing to return the boy to his father, who had said he was struggling to care for him.

Judge Chombo acknowledged the rules for foreigners were vague. Regulations that require Malawian welfare officials to observe prospective Malawian parents with the children they want to adopt for 18-24 months have been assumed to apply to foreigners, though legislation has been proposed making the period for foreigners one year. The judge said Madonna had last visited Malawi in 2008, and "jetted into the country during the weekend just days prior to the hearing of this application." "In my opinion, this would completely remove (Madonna) from the definition of 'resident,'" the judge said.

Mavuto Bamusi, an official with Malawi's Human Rights Consultative Committee, called Friday's ruling "a defining moment for child protection." Bamusi's group had been among those criticizing Madonna's adoption plans, saying they revealed weaknesses in the country's laws. "We sympathize with children like Mercy who find themselves in orphan-hood," Bamusi said. "But the Malawi authorities should take this as a moment of reflection. The laws of Malawi should now be strengthened so that no celebrity, no family that is trying to adopt should be seen as taking advantage of our weak laws."

The story of Madonna should not be taken lightly by individuals who wish to adopt internationally. Failure to fully comply with the laws of the Country from which you wish to adopt a child will likely result in the failure of the adoption process.

2 Raphael Tenthani, Associated Press Writer
3 Raphael Tenthani, Associated Press Writer

Nevada Revised Statute 125A.290 states:

1. Any order awarding a party a right of visitation of a minor child must:

(a) Define that right with sufficient particularity to ensure that the rights of the parties can be properly enforced and that the best interest of the child is achieved; and

(b) Specify that the State of Nevada or the state where the child resides within the United States of America is the habitual residence of the child. The order must include all specific times and other terms of the right of visitation.

2. As used in this section, "sufficient particularity" means a statement of the rights in absolute terms and not by the use of the term "reasonable" or other similar term which is susceptible to different interpretations by the parties.

When families with children are in the process of obtaining a divorce, the most difficult problem to determine after custody is established is what is "reasonable visitation." This can range from alternating weekends, to a two/five day split or to a fifty/fifty split depending on the type of custody which is awarded.

Absent an agreement between the parties, after a complaint for divorce is filed, the Court will usually send the parties to mediation to resolve custody and visitation issues. At this stage of the process the parties are allowed to work out what visitation is best for them and their children. Mediation in Nevada is non-binding. In the event the parties cannot resolve visitation the Court will ultimately hold an evidentiary hearing and set the visitation schedule which it deems is in the children's best interests. Usually no one is happy with the Court's order. Therefore, if possible, it is in the parties' and their children's interests to resolve this issue without Court intervention.

This web site is designed to only provide general information. Nothing contained in this web site should be construed to provide formal legal advice or create the formation of an attorney/client relationship. The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone accessing this web site who is considering retaining an attorney should independently investigate the attorney's background, credentials and ability.

Nevada Revised Statute 122.020 states in pertinent part:

Persons capable of marriage...

1. A male and a female person, at least 18 years of age, not nearer of kin than second cousins or cousins of the half blood, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage.

Furthermore, Nevada Revised Statute 127.030 states:

Who may petition [for adoption]. Any adult person or any two persons married to each other may petition the district court of any county in this state for leave to adopt a child. The petition by a person having a husband or wife shall not be granted unless the husband or wife consents thereto and joins therein.

Adoption more often than not involves the termination of parental rights of at least one parent. As such, adoption can be a very personal issue for which the parties need a caring attorney, that empathizes with the emotion involved in the case and has the sensitivity to address the case accordingly.

Adoptions fall into two main categories, including voluntary adoptions and involuntary adoptions. Voluntary adoptions are ones in which the biological parent(s) voluntarily give up their parental rights to the child(ren). This then allows for a qualified adoptive parent to adopt the child. Alternatively, involuntary adoptions involve lawsuits that seek to involuntarily terminate the biological parent(s) rights to the child(ren), often for the safety of the child(ren); these are also known as contested adoptions.

The process by which both an uncontested and contested adoption are initiated, when either or both of the parents are in the picture, are the same; a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights must be filed. This initial proceeding, Termination of Parental Rights, is where a proceeding will be contested, or not. Specifically, if one or both of the parents does not wish the child to be adopted, he/she will refuse to sign a Consent to Termination of Parental Rights and the subsequently filed Consent to Adoption. If this is the case, the proceeding must go forward as a contested matter.

Nevada Revised Statute 128.105 enumerates the grounds for terminating parental rights:

The primary consideration in any proceeding to terminate parental rights must be whether the best interests of the child will be served by the termination. An order of the court for the termination of parental rights must be made in light of the considerations set forth in this section and NRS 128.106 to128.109, inclusive, and based on evidence and include a finding that:

1. The best interests of the child would be served by the termination of parental rights; and

2. The conduct of the parent or parents was the basis for a finding made pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 432B.393 or demonstrated at least one of the following:

(a) Abandonment of the child;

(b) Neglect of the child;

(c) Unfitness of the parent;

(d) Failure of parental adjustment;

(e) Risk of serious physical, mental or emotional injury to the child if he were returned to, or remains in, the home of his parent or parents;

(f) Only token efforts by the parent or parents:

(1) To support or communicate with the child;

(2) To prevent neglect of the child;

(3) To avoid being an unfit parent; or

(4) To eliminate the risk of serious physical, mental or emotional injury to the child; or

(g) With respect to termination of the parental rights of one parent, the abandonment by that parent.

Furthermore, Nevada Revised Statute 128.106 outlines the specific considerations in determining neglect by or unfitness of parent:

In determining neglect by or unfitness of a parent, the court shall consider, without limitation, the following conditions which may diminish suitability as a parent:

1. Emotional illness, mental illness or mental deficiency of the parent which renders the parent consistently unable to care for the immediate and continuing physical or psychological needs of the child for extended periods of time. The provisions contained in NRS 128.109 apply to the case if the child has been placed outside his home pursuant to chapter 432B of NRS

2. Conduct toward a child of a physically, emotionally or sexually cruel or abusive nature.

3. Conduct that violates any provision of NRS 200.463, 200.464 or 200.465.

4. Excessive use of intoxicating liquors, controlled substances or dangerous drugs which renders the parent consistently unable to care for the child.

5. Repeated or continuous failure by the parent, although physically and financially able, to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, education or other care and control necessary for his physical, mental and emotional health and development, but a person who, legitimately practicing his religious beliefs, does not provide specified medical treatment for a child is not for that reason alone a negligent parent.

6. Conviction of the parent for commission of a felony, if the facts of the crime are of such a nature as to indicate the unfitness of the parent to provide adequate care and control to the extent necessary for the child's physical, mental or emotional health and development.

7. Unexplained injury or death of a sibling of the child.

8. Inability of appropriate public or private agencies to reunite the family despite reasonable efforts on the part of the agencies. (Added to NRS by 1981, 1751; A 1989, 1187; 1995, 361; 2005, 89)

In order to contest a Petition to Terminate Parental Rights, a parent may file an Opposition with the Court and/or attend the hearing regarding same, making an oral objection to the termination. The Court will make every effort to sustain the parent/child relationship, giving the biological parent(s) the benefit of the doubt when evidence supporting the termination is lacking. As such, it is in the best interest of the prospective adoptive parents to gather as much evidence as possible in support of the Termination of Parental Rights, filing same with the Court.

Once parental rights are terminated, the adoption process can move forward smoothly; with the Order Terminating Parental Rights attached as an exhibit to the Petition for Adoption.

This web site is designed to only provide general information. Nothing contained in this web site should be construed to provide formal legal advice or create the formation of an attorney/client relationship. The State Bar of Nevada does not certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone accessing this web site who is considering retaining an attorney should independently investigate the attorney's background, credentials and ability.

Resources:

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Clark County Pro Bono Project
800 South 8th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702.388.1070
Facsimile: 702.388.1642
WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA

Washoe Legal Services
650 Tahoe Street
Reno, NV 89509
Telephone: 775.329.2727
Facsimile: 775.324.5509
Family Law Self Help Center
Family Courts & Services Center
601 North Pecos Road
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702.455.1500
Family Law Self Help Center
1st Floor, One South Sierra
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: 775.325.6735
Lawyer Referral & Information
Services - Sponsored by the State
Bar of Nevada
600 E. Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Telephone: 702.382.0504
Lawyer Referral & Information
Services - Sponsored by the State
Bar of Nevada
Telephone: 800.789.5747
Clark County Law Library
309 S. Third Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: 702.455.4696
Washoe County Law Library
75 Court Street, Room 101
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: 775.328.3250
William S. Boyd School of Law
Law Library
4505 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89154
Telephone: 702.895.2400

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Temporary Protective Orders
Violence Intervention Program & Protection Orders Family Courts & Services Center

601 North Pecos Road
Las Vegas, NV 89501
Telephone: 702.455.3400

After Hours Protection Order Hotline
702.646.4981

Safe Nest
Temporary Assistance for
Domestic Violence
2915 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 12
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: 702.877.0133

Domestic Violence 24-Hour Hotline 702.646.4981

Domestic Violence Temporary Protection Office
Washoe County Family Court 1 South Sierra Street, Room 308
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: 775.328.3468

Safe Embrace
P.O. Box 9669
Reno, NV 89507
Telephone: 775.322.3466

Coping with Divorce Seminar

Prior to obtaining a divorce in Nevada any family with Minor Children which resides in a county with more than 100,000 people must attend an educational seminar to help divorcing parents focus on how to help their children adjust to the stress of the Divorce.

Palo Verde
Child & Family Services, Inc.
222 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: 702.243.4357

Family Solutions, Inc.
840 S. Rancho Dr.
Suite #4 - 175

Telephone: 702.395.8417

Links

Miscellaneous

www.law.cornell.edu

This web site offers materials covering federal judicial decision, state statutes, state divorce laws and web sites supporting divorce resources.

www.howtogetadivorce.com

This web site offers information on state divorce laws, statutes and guidelines. It also provides forms for individuals to use who are attempting to get divorced.



The above resources and links are to provide to you for your use and to assist you with your legal needs. However, we do not represent nor can we represent, guarantee or warrant that the information provided by the Resources and Links are accurate. Furthermore, we do not represent nor can we represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in those sources is accurate or is appropriate as it applies to any particular situation. The law has to be taken as a whole not used in discreet individual parts. Therefore we recommend that individuals who access the resources and links set forth above consult with their own counsel prior to relying on any information contained herein.


Up | Down | Top | Bottom

Contact Us


©2011 Lyons Law Firm. Website designed by Kevin Vain | Imperium Graphics