CORNISH VS. GUADAGNOLI-ALISPACH (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court evaluated its appellate jurisdiction sua sponte. Under NRAP 3A(b)(7), an appeal lies from a final district court order pertaining to child custody, and "[a]n order will be deemed final when all pending issues of child custody ... are resolved." Because respondent's countermotion to modify child custody remained pending below and was set for an evidentiary hearing on September 2, 2025, the order on appeal was not final for purposes of NRAP 3A(b)(7). 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." Finding no other statute or rule authorizing an appeal from the order, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal is without prejudice to filing a new notice of appeal once the district court enters a written order finally resolving all pending child custody issues.

In plain language

A parent who lost her request to change a child custody and child support arrangement tried to appeal that loss to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looked at the lower court's records and noticed something important: the other parent had filed his own request to change custody (a "countermotion"), and the trial judge had not yet ruled on it. In fact, that request was still scheduled for a hearing in September 2025. Under Nevada's appeal rules, a child custody decision can usually be appealed only after the trial court has finished dealing with all the custody issues in the case. Because part of the custody dispute was still unresolved, the Supreme Court concluded it did not yet have the authority (jurisdiction) to hear the appeal. It dismissed the appeal but noted in a footnote that the appellant may file a new notice of appeal, if she is unhappy with the result, once the district court enters a written order that finally resolves all pending custody issues.