International Family Law Attorneys in Las Vegas

When a Family Law Case Crosses an International Border

A case becomes an international matter the moment a second country has a real connection to your family. That can happen in more ways than most people expect: one spouse holds foreign citizenship, a child was born abroad, a marriage took place in another country, retirement or business assets sit in a foreign bank, a parent accepts a job overseas, or one parent takes a child on an international trip and does not bring the child home.

Each of those facts raises the same threshold questions before anyone reaches the merits of the case. Which country’s courts have authority to decide? Which country’s law applies? Will an order entered in Las Vegas actually be enforced somewhere else? Getting those questions right at the outset shapes everything that follows, and a strategy that ignores them can produce an order that looks like a win on paper and cannot be enforced in practice.

Hague Convention Child Abduction Cases

When a child is wrongfully removed from or retained outside of their country of habitual residence, immediate legal action is often critical. We represent both parents seeking the return of a child and parents defending against Hague Convention petitions under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Convention is implemented in the United States by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. Section 9001 and following. A return petition can be filed in either state or federal court, and Nevada district courts and the federal court in Las Vegas both hear them. It is important to understand what the proceeding is and is not: a Hague case decides which country should decide custody, not who should win custody. The court deciding the return petition does not weigh the best interest factors that a Nevada custody trial would.

Petitions for the Return of a Child

A petitioning parent generally must show that the child was habitually resident in another country, that the removal or retention breached the petitioner’s rights of custody, and that those rights were being exercised. Habitual residence is decided on the totality of the circumstances rather than by a single rigid test, as the United States Supreme Court confirmed in Monasky v. Taglieri (2020).

Timing matters enormously. When a petition is filed within one year of the wrongful removal or retention, return is ordered unless a recognized exception applies. After a year has passed, the responding parent can argue that the child is now settled in the new environment, which gives the court discretion to refuse return. The Convention also calls for the most expeditious procedures available, which is why we move quickly on intake, evidence, and filing.

Defending Against a Hague Petition

Being named in a return petition is not the end of the case. Recognized defenses include consent or acquiescence to the removal, the child’s objection where the child is mature enough for the court to consider it, the settled child defense described above, and the grave risk exception under Article 13(b), which applies where return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. Article 13(b) must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In Golan v. Saada (2022), the Supreme Court held that a court finding grave risk is not required to consider measures that might allow safe return, but it retains discretion to do so.

These defenses are fact intensive and evidence driven, frequently involving records from another country, translated documents, and expert testimony on foreign law. That is work best started immediately, not after the first hearing is set.

International Child Custody and Relocation

International custody disputes can arise even when a Hague Convention case is not involved. Parents may disagree about relocating overseas, enforcing a foreign custody order, or determining which country’s courts have jurisdiction.

Nevada answers the jurisdiction question through the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at NRS Chapter 125A. Under NRS 125A.225, a Nevada court treats a foreign country as if it were another state for jurisdictional purposes, and a custody determination made abroad under circumstances substantially conforming to those standards must be recognized and enforced. There is one significant limit: that recognition does not apply if the child custody laws of the foreign country violate fundamental principles of human rights.

Relocation is governed separately. A parent with primary physical custody who intends to move a child out of Nevada must first seek the other parent’s written consent and, if consent is refused, petition the court for permission under NRS 125C.006. A parent sharing joint physical custody must petition for primary physical custody for the purpose of relocating under NRS 125C.0065. The relocating parent carries the burden of proving the move is in the child’s best interest, and the court weighs the factors listed in NRS 125C.007. Moving a child abroad without consent or a court order can expose a parent to criminal liability under NRS 200.359 and can cause the court to disregard everything that happened after the move.

International relocation raises questions a domestic move does not. Is the destination country a treaty partner if the child is later retained there? Will its courts enforce the Nevada parenting plan? Are mirror orders, bond requirements, passport controls, or supervised travel provisions appropriate? We build those protections into the order rather than hoping they never become necessary. For domestic moves, see our page on relocation and move-away cases, and for the underlying custody framework, see child custody.

International Divorce Matters

Divorce involving spouses who reside in different countries presents unique legal challenges. Questions often arise regarding jurisdiction, property located abroad, foreign divorce decrees, and international enforcement of court orders.

Nevada is often an available forum sooner than clients expect. Under NRS 125.020, a plaintiff who has been physically present and resident in the county for six weeks before filing can file for divorce here, one of the shortest residency requirements in the country. That said, filing first in the more favorable forum is a strategic decision with lasting consequences for property division and support, and it deserves analysis before anyone files anything.

Assets abroad add another layer. Nevada is a community property state, and foreign real estate, offshore accounts, foreign pensions, and interests in companies organized outside the United States all have to be identified, valued, and characterized. A Nevada court may not be able to directly transfer title to land in another country, but it can enter orders against the parties themselves and can offset foreign assets against Nevada assets. In high value cases, our in-house Certified Divorce Financial Analysts work alongside the litigation team on tracing, valuation, and currency issues. See property and asset division and high net worth divorce for more.

Foreign judgments raise their own issues. A divorce granted abroad is generally recognized in the United States as a matter of comity rather than full faith and credit, and recognition can be contested where jurisdiction, notice, or basic fairness was lacking. Foreign child support orders are handled under Nevada’s version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act at NRS Chapter 130, which includes procedures for orders from countries covered by the 2007 Hague child support convention and for those that are not.

Hague Service Convention: Serving Documents Abroad

Serving legal documents in another country is not as simple as mailing paperwork overseas. Many countries require compliance with the Hague Service Convention, an international treaty governing the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents abroad.

Where the Convention applies, its use is mandatory, not optional. Nevada practice reflects this directly: NRCP 4.3(b) allows service on an individual outside the United States by any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, including the methods authorized by the Hague Service Convention. Service done the wrong way can be set aside months later, taking any resulting order with it.

The United States Department of State maintains country specific guidance on service of process abroad, and the current text of the Nevada rules is published in the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure.

Why Clients Choose Cohen Fic & Squires

• Family law only, since 2003. We do not take commercial, personal injury, or criminal defense cases. Nevada family law is the entire practice.
• AV Preeminent rated by Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer rating for legal ability and ethical standards.
• Cross border experience. We handle international parental abduction matters through the Hague Convention Attorney Network and coordinate with foreign counsel where a case requires it.
• Financial depth on complex estates. Certified Divorce Financial Analysts on staff for cases involving foreign assets, business interests, and retirement accounts.
• Attorneys who know the Nevada system. Lesley Cohen served in the Nevada State Assembly, Holly Fic is known for tenacious client advocacy, and Summer Squires was recognized as a 2025 NAFLA Top 10 Under 40 attorney.
• Two Clark County offices. Our main office is in Henderson, with a second location in Las Vegas.

International Family Law Questions We Hear Most