HEATH VS. THORMAHLEN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 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." The court acknowledged that NRAP 3A(b)(7) ordinarily authorizes an appeal from an order finally denying a motion to modify custody. However, the July 30, 2025, order denied modification of temporary supervised visitation, not a final custody determination. Relying on In re Temp. Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989), the court reasoned that an order subject to periodic mandatory review and modification is not a final, appealable order. The court further noted that the district court had not entered any order finally resolving the issue of custody. Lacking a statutory or rule-based basis for jurisdiction, the court dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

This is a child-custody dispute in which the father, Troy Daniel Heath, asked the family court to end the requirement that his visits with the child be supervised. The family court said no, ordered the supervised visits to continue, and directed him to resume a program called the Options Patch Program. He then tried to appeal that decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the family court was right or wrong about the visitation. Instead, it concluded that it has no power to hear this appeal at this stage. In Nevada, a person can only appeal certain kinds of decisions - those that a statute or court rule specifically allows to be appealed. The court explained that while a final decision denying a request to change custody usually can be appealed, this order dealt only with temporary supervised visitation, not a final custody decision. Because temporary custody orders can be revisited and changed by the lower court, they are not the kind of final ruling the Supreme Court can review. The court therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.