HEATH VS. THORMAHLEN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court raised appellate jurisdiction on its own. Reviewing the challenged order, the court determined it was a temporary custody order "subject to modification based upon a scheduled review." Citing In re Temp. Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989), the court reiterated that an order subject to periodic mandatory review and modification is not a final, appealable order. The court further noted that NRAP 3A(b)(7) authorizes appeals from district court orders that finally alter custody of minor children - a condition not satisfied here. Lacking a final, appealable order under NRAP 3A(b)(7), the court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

In plain language

This is a child custody case. After the trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law, the father, Troy Heath, tried to appeal that ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court. Before deciding the merits, the Supreme Court checked whether it had the power to hear the appeal at all. In Nevada, parties generally cannot appeal every order a trial court issues - they can only appeal certain types of orders, typically ones that finally resolve an issue. The Supreme Court concluded that the order Heath challenged was only temporary: it set custody on an interim basis and was already scheduled to be reviewed and potentially changed by the trial court. Because the order was not final, the Supreme Court held it had no authority to consider the appeal and dismissed it. Dismissal here is on jurisdictional grounds and reflects nothing about the strength of the underlying custody arguments.