I am going through a divorce currently. I had my temporary orders hearing today. My wife has a domestic violence conviction of which I was on the receiving end (she is quite unstable).
Quote:
NRS 125C.230 Presumption concerning custody when court determines that parent or other person seeking custody of child is perpetrator of domestic violence.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125C.210 and 125C.220, a determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing and finding by clear and convincing evidence that either parent or any other person seeking custody of a child has engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child or any other person residing with the child creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody of the child by the perpetrator of the domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child. Upon making such a determination, the court shall set forth:
(a) Findings of fact that support the determination that one or more acts of domestic violence occurred; and
(b) Findings that the custody or visitation arrangement ordered by the court adequately protects the child and the parent or other victim of domestic violence who resided with the child.
2. If after an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to subsection 1 the court determines that more than one party has engaged in acts of domestic violence, it shall, if possible, determine which person was the primary physical aggressor. In determining which party was the primary physical aggressor for the purposes of this section, the court shall consider:
(a) All prior acts of domestic violence involving any of the parties;
(b) The relative severity of the injuries, if any, inflicted upon the persons involved in those prior acts of domestic violence;
(c) The likelihood of future injury;
(d) Whether, during the prior acts, one of the parties acted in self-defense; and
(e) Any other factors that the court deems relevant to the determination.
Ê In such a case, if it is not possible for the court to determine which party is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to subsection 1 applies to each of the parties. If it is possible for the court to determine which party is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to subsection 1 applies only to the party determined by the court to be the primary physical aggressor.
3. As used in this section, “domestic violence” means the commission of any act described in NRS 33.018.
(Added to NRS by 1999, 742)
http://law.justia.com/nevada/codes/NRS-125C.html
Quote:
rebuttable presumption n. since a presumption is an assumption of fact accepted by the court until disproved, all presumptions are rebuttable. Thus rebuttable presumption is a redundancy. (See: presumption)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rebuttable+presumption
The judge totally ignored the presumption and we got joint temp custody, AND I have to pay her since I make more money (about to change).
What am I missing?
My view of Gov. continually being reinforced..
Quote:
NRS 125C.230 Presumption concerning custody when court determines that parent or other person seeking custody of child is perpetrator of domestic violence.
1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125C.210 and 125C.220, a determination by the court after an evidentiary hearing and finding by clear and convincing evidence that either parent or any other person seeking custody of a child has engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence against the child, a parent of the child or any other person residing with the child creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody of the child by the perpetrator of the domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child. Upon making such a determination, the court shall set forth:
(a) Findings of fact that support the determination that one or more acts of domestic violence occurred; and
(b) Findings that the custody or visitation arrangement ordered by the court adequately protects the child and the parent or other victim of domestic violence who resided with the child.
2. If after an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to subsection 1 the court determines that more than one party has engaged in acts of domestic violence, it shall, if possible, determine which person was the primary physical aggressor. In determining which party was the primary physical aggressor for the purposes of this section, the court shall consider:
(a) All prior acts of domestic violence involving any of the parties;
(b) The relative severity of the injuries, if any, inflicted upon the persons involved in those prior acts of domestic violence;
(c) The likelihood of future injury;
(d) Whether, during the prior acts, one of the parties acted in self-defense; and
(e) Any other factors that the court deems relevant to the determination.
Ê In such a case, if it is not possible for the court to determine which party is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to subsection 1 applies to each of the parties. If it is possible for the court to determine which party is the primary physical aggressor, the presumption created pursuant to subsection 1 applies only to the party determined by the court to be the primary physical aggressor.
3. As used in this section, “domestic violence” means the commission of any act described in NRS 33.018.
(Added to NRS by 1999, 742)
http://law.justia.com/nevada/codes/NRS-125C.html
Quote:
rebuttable presumption n. since a presumption is an assumption of fact accepted by the court until disproved, all presumptions are rebuttable. Thus rebuttable presumption is a redundancy. (See: presumption)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rebuttable+presumption
The judge totally ignored the presumption and we got joint temp custody, AND I have to pay her since I make more money (about to change).
What am I missing?
My view of Gov. continually being reinforced..
