BOATNER VS. BROWN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court raised the jurisdictional question sua sponte upon review of the notice of appeal. Citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), the court reiterated that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule." NRAP 3A(b)(7) authorizes appeals from district court orders that finally alter custody of minor children, but no statute or rule authorizes an appeal from a temporary custody order. The court relied on In re Temporary Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989), for the proposition that no appeal lies from temporary custody orders subject to periodic mandatory review. Finding the challenged order to be temporary, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed.

In plain language

This case involves a custody dispute between Nicole Boatner and Randy Brown over their minor children. A district court judge in Carson City entered a temporary order giving Randy Brown sole legal and physical custody of the children. Nicole Boatner, representing herself without a lawyer, tried to appeal that temporary order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not decide who should have custody of the children. Instead, it concluded that it did not have the legal authority - what courts call "jurisdiction" - to hear the appeal at all. Under Nevada law, the Supreme Court can only hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically allows. No statute or rule permits an appeal from a temporary custody order; appeals are allowed only from orders that finally change custody. Because the order Boatner challenged was temporary, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the custody dispute.