HARDING VS. HARDING (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The clerk's order dismisses the appeal as a sanction for noncompliance with NRAP 3(a)(2), which requires a case appeal statement to accompany a notice of appeal. After docketing on November 4, 2025, the court issued a deficiency notice the same day directing appellant to file the case appeal statement within 7 days, with a caution that noncompliance could result in sanctions. After noncompliance, the court issued a second order on November 14, 2025, directing appellant to file the statement in the district court and a file-stamped copy in the Supreme Court within 7 days, this time cautioning that noncompliance would result in sanctions including dismissal. Appellant did not file the case appeal statement, and the court dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

This is a procedural dismissal, not a decision on the merits of the underlying child custody dispute. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, they must also file a document called a "case appeal statement" - a short form that gives the court basic information about the case. Saxon Harding filed a notice of appeal but did not include this required statement. The Nevada Supreme Court gave him two chances to fix the problem. On November 4, 2025, the court issued a notice telling him to file the case appeal statement within 7 days and warned that not doing so could lead to sanctions. When he still had not filed it, on November 14, 2025, the court issued a second order giving him another 7 days and warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the appeal. Because the case appeal statement was still not filed, the court dismissed the appeal. The order does not address the merits of the custody dispute between the parties.