BLACKWOOD VS. BLACKWOOD (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court addressed a remand motion under NRAP 12A in the context of an arguably premature appeal from a post-decree custody and support order. The procedural complication: the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing in November and December 2024, but before issuing its written decision, entertained intervening emergency custody motions and, on April 21, 2025, found cause for a new evidentiary hearing. The May 21, 2025, order then purported to resolve the 2023 motions on custody and support but did not address the April 21 order or the pending emergency motions, except to note vaguely that a pending motion was not considered. On finality, the court canvassed NRAP 3A(b)(7), which deems an order final "when all pending issues of child custody, guardianship of minors, parenting time, visitation, or relocation of a minor are resolved." The court noted tension: the May 21 order was later in time and would "arguably supersede" earlier custody orders, but the existence of a pending motion suggests nonfinality, and it was "further unclear whether requiring reunification therapy but leaving any award of visitation to future consideration constitutes a final order on custody." The court declined to resolve jurisdiction. On remand, the court treated the July 22, 2025, district court order - which referenced the procedures associated with Mack-Manley v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849, 138 P.3d 525 (2006), and Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978), now codified in NRCP 62.1 and NRAP 12A - as a certification that the emergency motions raised a substantial issue warranting further consideration under NRCP 62.1(a) and NRAP 12A(b). Concluding that further proceedings were warranted to address recent events bearing on custody, the court granted the motion for remand, declined to retain jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal. The district court was directed to expeditiously resolve legal and physical custody and support by a new written order, from which any aggrieved party must take a new notice of appeal.

In plain language

This is a child custody dispute between two divorced parents. Since December 2020, by stipulation, the mother (Melanie Blackwood) has had sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two youngest children in Oklahoma, with no child support flowing in either direction. In 2023, she asked for child support, and the father (Mark L. Blackwood) asked the court to begin a reunification process with the children. The district court held an evidentiary hearing in late 2024, but did not issue its written ruling until May 21, 2025. That ruling gave the parents joint legal custody, gave the mother primary physical custody, ordered reunification therapy with a future goal of in-person visitation in Nevada, and granted the mother's request for child support. The order also contemplated mediation after six months of therapy to negotiate a permanent out-of-state visitation arrangement. Between the late-2024 hearing and the May 21 written order, the father filed two emergency motions claiming new incidents had occurred. The mother filed a countermotion seeking sole custody. On April 21, 2025, the district court issued a separate order finding that the father's emergency motion warranted a new evidentiary hearing, set for July 17, 2025. Because the mother then filed a notice of appeal from the May 21 order, the 2025 custody proceedings stalled over jurisdictional concerns - once a case is on appeal, the trial court generally cannot continue to act on the same issues without permission. The father then asked the Nevada Supreme Court to send the case back to the district court so that court could address the new emergency issues. He pointed to a July 22, 2025, district court order certifying that remand was appropriate to consider the emergency custody motions further. The mother opposed, arguing the May 21 order had resolved everything and that the emergency motions raised nothing new. The Supreme Court observed that it was "unclear" whether the May 21 order was actually a final, appealable order, given that another custody motion was already pending and the order left visitation to future proceedings. Rather than resolve that jurisdictional question, the court accepted that further proceedings in the district court were necessary because of recent events affecting the children. It granted the remand, dismissed the appeal, and directed the district court to expeditiously enter a new written order resolving custody (legal and physical) and support. Any future appeal must be taken by filing a new notice of appeal from that new order.