Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 5, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

GILL v. GILL (CHILD CUSTODY)

Nevada Supreme Court

• Citations: 142 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 19

• Docket Number: 89753

• Opinion

• Authorities (12)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (23.6K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

142 Nev., Advance Opinion ICI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VIKRAMJIT SINGH GILL, No. 89753
Appellant,
vs.
ANJENA KAUR GILL,
FILED
Respondent. MAR 05 2026
E ETH A. B WN
SU COURT

BY
DEPUTY CLERK

Appeal from a district court order denying, for lack of
jurisdiction, a motion for child custody and child support. Eighth Judicial
District Court, Family Division, Clark County; Heidi Almase, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.

Willick Law Group and Marshal S. Willick, Las Vegas,
for Appellant.

Jones & LoBello and Robert Cerceo and John D. Jones, Las Vegas,
for Respondent.

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, PARRAGUIRRE, BELL, and
STIGLICH, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE, J.:
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act
(UCCJEA) governs jurisdiction over child custody proceedings and aims to
avoid simultaneous proceedings in different courts. We take this

SUPREME COURT
OF

-212 • i o3 tff
NEVADA

(0) I941A ADD
opportunity to clarify the effect foreign custody proceedings have on a
court's determination of its UCCJEA jurisdiction.
In the underlying case, the father of a minor child filed for
divorce in Nevada and requested child custody and child support. The
district court denied these requests, determining it lacked jurisdiction and
noting that a custody action brought in Canada by the niother of the child
was ongoing. We conclude that although the child was in Canada for a tirne
preceding commencement of the mother's custody action, the record shows
that for jurisdictional purposes, this was a temporary absence from Nevada.
Thus, the child is considered to have resided in Nevada for the requisite
period to establish home state jurisdiction in Nevada under the UCCJEA.
We therefore reverse the district court's order denying the father's request
for child custody and support to the extent it failed to recognize that it has
j urisdiction.
Nonetheless, the father previously brought a separate
proceeding in Canada that resulted in a Hague determination that the child
was not returnable to Nevada because Canada is the child's habitual
residence, and consequently, it may be appropriate for Nevada to ultimately
decline to exercise jurisdiction. Such a determination is premature at this
stage, however, because the Canadian court where the mother's custody
action is pending has not determined whether it has jurisdiction and the
district court has not yet attempted to communicate with the Canadian
court. In addition, it would be imprudent to deterrnine that the Canadian
court is a more appropriate forum without providing the parties an
opportunity to properly brief the issue in the district court. Accordingly, we
remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(t) 1047A .40.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Respondent Anjena Gill and appellant Vikramjit (Vick) Gill
were married in 2020. Anjena gave birth to a son, K.G., in Las Vegas on

April 15, 2023. One month later, the two traveled to Canada for a funeral,
but unexpected delays caused them to remain in Canada longer than
expected. Vick visited Anjena and K.G. occasionally during their extended
stay and communicated with them several times per day. Anjena and Vick
discussed plans to expand their family, and Anjena even consulted a
fertility clinic while in Canada. At sorne point during this extended stay,
however, the parties' relationship soured.
On November 6, 2023, Anjena moved for custody of K.G. in a

Canadian court. Vick responded by initiating Hague proceedings—also in
Canada—for the immediate return of K.G.' The Hague proceedings
resulted in a determination that K.G. was not returnable to Nevada because
he was a habitual resident of Canada. Vick appealed that determination
but was unsuccessful. He subsequently answered Anjena's Canadian-court
custody request and asserted a counterclaim for custody. Throughout the
Canadian custody proceedings, Vick has challenged Canada's subject
matter jurisdiction. The Canadian court has not determined whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction over the custody matter.
Following Vick's unsuccessful Hague petition, he initiated
divorce proceedings in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada and
moved for custody of K.G., along with child support. The district court

'The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
Child Abduction provides parents the opportunity to secure the prompt
return of their child when that child was wrongfully removed from their
habitual residence. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1, 4 (2014).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
0) 1947A
denied Vick's motion for custody of K.G., determining it lacks home state
jurisdiction and that a significant amount of litigation already took place in
Canada. The district court also denied Vick's child support claim. Vick now
appeals, arguing that the district court wrongfully declined to exercise
subject matter jurisdiction over the custody and support claims.2
DISCUSSION
"Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de
novo review," while a district court's factual findings "are given deference
and will be upheld if not clearly erroneous and if supported by substantial
evidence." Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667-68, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009).
Like other state courts that have dealt with this issue, we first determine
whether Nevada has home state jurisdiction before addressing any
restrictions on the exercise of such authority. See Goodman v. Goodman,
556 A.2d 1379, 1385 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (employing a two-pronged
balancing test to resolve a situation involving potential conflict of
jurisdictions); Katz v. Katz, 986 N.Y.S.2d 611, 613 (App. Div. 2014)
(determining that the court had home state jurisdiction over a custody
petition before analyzing a prior Hague determination's effect on the
exercise of such jurisdiction).

2 Vick further claims the district court erred in determining that
Anjena is entitled to attorney fees, but the record does not indicate that the
court actually entered an order awarding fees. Therefore, we do not have
jurisdiction to consider the claim. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424,
426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (recognizing that an award of fees is an
independently appealable special order after final judgment when it is not
included in the judgment).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1)147A
Whether Nevada is K G.'s home state under the UCCJEA
The UCCJEA is aimed at preventing jurisdictional conflicts,
avoiding the relitigation of issues relating to child custody, and deterring
child abductions. Unif. Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enf t Act § 101, cmt.,
9 U.L.A. 657 (1999) (explaining the UCCJEA's purposes). Nevada codified
the UCCJEA as NRS Chapter 125A. See NRS 125A.005, Kar v. Ka.r, 132
Nev. 636, 638, 378 P.M 1204, 1205 (2016). The UCCJEA accomplishes its
jurisdictional objective by conferring subject matter jurisdiction to the
child's "home state." Ogawa, 125 Nev. at 668, 221 P.3d at 704. Thus, "the
'home state' [is of] principal importance in custody determinations." Id.
NRS 125A.305 governs initial child custody jurisdiction. The
statute provides, in relevant part, that a court of this state has jurisdiction
over an initial custody determination if
[t]his State is the home state of the child on the date
of the commencement of the proceeding or was the
home state of the child within 6 months before the
commencement of the proceeding and the child is
absent from this State but a parent or person acting
as a parent continues to live in this State.
NRS 125A.305(1)(a). Under NRS 125A.085, "home state" means "[the state
in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at
least 6 consecutive months, including any temporary absence from the
state, immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding."
K.G. was born on April 15, 2023. Vick's custody filing was on May 3, 2024,
meaning K.G. was about 13 months old when the custody filing was lodged.
Vick argues that K.G. was temporarily absent from Nevada
between May 21, 2023, and November 6, 2023. The district court order
indicated "[i]t is disputed in the Canadian pleadings whether this was for a
temporary visit or a non-temporary visit." While it is true that the parties

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) I947A
fought over Anjena's intent when she departed Nevada, the Hague
determination concluded that Anjena did not form an intent to remain in
Canada until November 2023, shortly before commencing her custody
proceeding with the Canadian court. This finding of fact was consistent
with Anjena's argument made before the Canadian court.3 Putting this

observation aside, the parties do not dispute that Anjena initially departed
Nevada to attend a funeral with the intent to return. During her absence,
Anjena communicated frequently with Vick and discussed plans to expand
their family. Her stay in Canada was prolonged for two reasons—first, the
parties' Nevada home had a substantial water leak that required repair,
and second, she found temporary employment. Anjena does not oppose
Vick's argument that K.G. was temporarily absent between May and
November 2023. See Ozawa v. Vision Airlines, Inc., 125 Nev. 556, 563, 216
P.3d 788, 793 (2009) (recognizing a party's failure to respond to a raised
argument constitutes a concession). Therefore, the only logical conclusion
is that K.G. was temporarily absent from Nevada between May 21, 2023,
and November 6, 2023.
Vick's reliance on Friedman v. Eighth Judicial District Court,
127 Nev. 842, 264 P.3d 1161 (2011), for support that Anjena's Canadian
custody filing started the six-month look-back period is unfounded. In

Friedman, we recognized that NRS 125A.305(1)(a)'s "commencement of the
proceeding" language was ambiguous as to jurisdiction over a child custody
modification proceeding. 127 Nev. at 848, 264 P.3d at 1166. We

acknowledged that once a court has home state jurisdiction over an initial

3Anjena argues that Canada's findings of fact were made in
substantial conformity with NRS Chapter 125A, require full faith and
credit, and should not be relitigated in Nevada.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
6
I 01 19-17A
custody determination, it has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to modify
custody orders until that jurisdiction ceases. Id. at 847-48, 264 P.3d at
1165-66. But in the event exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ceases, the
parties are directed back to NRS 125A.305 to determine which court has
jurisdiction over the modification proceeding. Id. at 848, 264 P.3d at 1166.

We clarified that, in that context, NRS 125A.305(1)(a)'s "commencement of
the proceeding" language refers to "the post-divorce motion concerning
custody or visitation," not the original divorce proceeding. Id. at 848-49,
264 P.3d at 1166. But in determining whether a district court has UCCJEA
jurisdiction over an initial custody proceeding, we must calculate the six-
month look-back period from the date of "the commencement of the
proceeding." NRS 125A.305(1)(a). In other words, the operative date here
is the date Vick filed for divorce in Nevada, which was May 3, 2024.
Therefore, the district court did not err in calculating the six-month look-
back period from May 3, 2024.
As detailed, however, the district court failed to recognize that
K.G. was temporarily absent from Nevada prior to the divorce filing. Thus,
for jurisdictional purposes, K.G. is considered to have resided in Nevada
until November 6, 2023. Because K.G. did not depart the state for
jurisdictional purposes until November 6, 2023, less than six months prior
to the date Vick commenced his divorce proceeding and sought child
custody, Nevada had home state jurisdiction over K.G. We now turn to the
effect of the Canadian proceedings on Nevada's jurisdiction.4

4Because we conclude that Nevada had home state jurisdiction when
K.G.'s temporary absence is taken into account, we need not reach Vick's
argument that the Hague proceedings paused the UCCJEA jurisdictional
timer from December 14, 2023, to April 25, 2024. Anjena also argues that

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
7
0)1 I947A -12t1-•
Whether the Hague or Canadian proceedings affected Nevada's home state
jurisdiction
We first address the Hague proceedings. Vick argues the
Hague determination is irrelevant because the Hague Convention airns at
returning a child to their country of "habitual residence"—a different
inquiry than whether a court has jurisdiction to make a child custody
determination under the UCCJEA. The different objectives of the Hague
Convention and the UCCJEA lend some superficial support to Vick's
argument. Cf. Katz v. Katz, 986 N.Y.S.2d 611, 613 (App. Div. 2014) (holding
a prior Hague determination by a court in the Dominican Republic did not
affect a New York court's exercise of home state jurisdiction over a custody
petition). But in assessing the policy implications surrounding the Hague,
we are not convinced that the Hague determination is wholly irrelevant.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that "the
opinions of our sister signatories to a treaty are due considerable
weight . . . [and given] special force." Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68, 79
(2020) (citation modified). Hague determinations are intended to ensure, in
part, that 'custody decisions are made in the child's country of habitual
residence." Id. at 72 (citation modified). It therefore follows that, typically,
once a child's habitual residence is determined in a return action, "the
custody adjudication will proceed in that forum." Id. These considerations
weigh strongly in favor of respecting the Hague determination that Canada
is K.G.'s habitual residence. To be clear, it is not that the Nevada court
lacks home state jurisdiction based on the Hague determination. Rather,

judicial estoppel should bar Vick frorn seeking relief in Nevada, but as we
recognized in Friedman, judicial estoppel cannot be used to foreclose
challenges to subject matter jurisdiction. 127 Nev. at 852, 264 P.3d at 1168.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
8
(Or 19.17A C4›,
such deterrnination is relevant in deciding whether to relinquish
jurisdiction under NRS 125A.365(1), which provides that a Nevada court
c`may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it
is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of
another state is a more appropriate forum." Moreover, relinquishing
jurisdiction appears consistent with the 1996 convention adopted by the
Hague Conference on Private International Law, which addresses, arnong
other things, jurisdiction over child custody determinations as between
member countries. Gloria F. DeHart, Introductory Note, Hague Conference
on Private International Law: Final Act of the Eighteenth Session with the
Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and
Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the
Protection of Children, and Decisions on Matters Pertaining to the Agenda
of the Conference, 35 I.L.M. 1391, 1392 (1996) (recognizing "the basic core
of the Convention [was to] establish[] 'habitual residence' as the primary
jurisdictional standard" and explaining that "[w]hen the child's habitual
residence changes, jurisdiction follows"). And although the United States
and Canada have not ratified the 1996 convention, both countries are
signatories. Given these considerations, deferring jurisdiction to Canada
may ultimately be appropriate. We conclude, however, that declining
jurisdiction would be premature at this stage of litigation due to the
uncertain status of the pending custody proceedings in Canada.
Crucially, at oral argument, the parties revealed that the
Canadian court where Anjena filed her custody action has not determined
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Anjena conceded that the court
in Canada only entered an order formally honoring the Hague
determination without engaging in a substantive analysis about whether

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
9
(1., ) 1947A astDAD
Canada actually has jurisdiction. Anjena also conceded that the Canadian
court's order recognizing the Hague determination is not binding on this
court and indicated that the Canadian court is going to determine whether
it has jurisdiction at an upcoming 'trial.
Based on these revelations, it is unclear at this time whether
Canada will exercise jurisdiction. While the Canadian court seems to be
the more appropriate forum to decide the underlying custody dispute,
making such determination without providing the parties an opportunity to
properly brief the district court would be imprudent. See NRS 125A.365(2)
(recognizing that before declining jurisdiction, "the court shall allow the
parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors").
Moreover, "we are a court of review, not first view." Roth v. Foris Ventures,
LLC, 86 F.4th 832, 838 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Shirk v. United States ex
rel. Dep't of Interior, 773 F.3d 999, 1007 (9th Cir. 2014)); see Moody v.
NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 726 (2024) (remanding for further
proceedings because "Nile parties have not briefed the critical issues here,
and the record is underdeveloped").
Therefore, we reverse the order declining to exercise
jurisdiction and remand to the district court for further proceedings. When
simultaneous proceedings take place, the common practice is for the trial
courts of each state to communicate with each other through a UCCJEA
conference. See NRS 125A.355(2). But Canada has not adopted the
UCCJEA, and we cannot compel its courts to communicate with Nevada's
courts. With that said, we instruct the district court on remand to attempt
to contact the Canadian courts to hold a UCCJEA-equivalent conference, as
Nevada law contemplates such conferences. See NRS 125A.355(2); see also
NRS 125A.275. The district court should also direct briefing from the

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10
(0) 1947A 46143,
parties and conduct a proper analysis pursuant to NRS 125A.365 to
determine whether Nevada is the most appropriate forum to exercise
j urisdiction.
Vick's child support claim
Vick argues that the district court erred in dismissing his child
support claims because the parties stipulated that Nevada is the proper
jurisdiction for such claims. Anjena counters that the Canadian court
where she filed for custody has subject matter jurisdiction to issue child
support orders and that Nevada must honor such orders under NRS
Chapter 130. As discussed, the Canadian court has not determined whether
it has subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, Vick cites nothing besides his
own district court argument as record support for his assertion that Anjena
stipulated to Nevada presiding over the child support claim. This is
insufficient. See Browning v. State, 120 Nev. 347, 361, 91 P.3d 39, 50 (2004)
(noting a claim warrants no consideration when the appellant fails to
CC
provide [] any cogent argument, legal analysis, or supporting factual

allegations").
Nevertheless, we note that child custody and support claims are
ordinarily considered in unison, as contemplated in our caselaw and
Nevada's statutory scheme. See Bluestein v. Bluestein, 131 Nev. 106, 109
n.1, 345 P.3d 1044, 1046 n.1 (2015) (recognizing that "[t]he physical custody
arrangement governs the child support award"); NRS 125B.030 (providing
that parents with physical custody over a child may seek child support);
NRS 125C.0045 (providing that a court may enter an order "for the custody,
care, education, maintenance and support of the minor child as appears in
his or her best interest" during a custody action). Because Vick's child
custody and support claims are intertwined, we deem it appropriate to keep
the claims together. Therefore, we instruct the district court to exercise
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
11
(0) I947A ASDID
jurisdiction over both the child custody and support claims until it resolves
whether it will defer jurisdiction to Canada. Whichever court ultimately
retains jurisdiction over the custody dispute will likely be in the best
position to also address the child support claim.
CONCLUSION
Because K.G. had lived in Nevada for more than six months,
including the temporary absence, when Vick filed for divorce and child
custody, Nevada had home state jurisdiction over Vick's child custody claim.
We thus reverse the district court's order denying Vick's request for child
custody and support to the extent that it failed to recognize Nevada as
K.G.'s home state. The Hague determination concluding that the minor
child's habitual residence was in another country suggests, however, that
Nevada should decline to exercise such jurisdiction. Therefore, we remand
the matter to the district court with instructions to properly consider
whether the Canadian court is a more appropriate forum.

Parraguirre

We concur:

J.
Stiglich

12