HINCH VS. JENSEN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction on two independent grounds. As to the order modifying custody: notice of entry was served by mail on February 3, 2022, making the notice of appeal due in the district court by March 10, 2022, under NRAP 4(a)(1) and NRCP 6(d). The notice of appeal was filed March 17, 2022. An untimely notice of appeal deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction. Healy v. Volkswagenwerk, 103 Nev. 329, 330-31, 741 P.2d 432, 433 (1987). As to the order granting temporary sole custody: the court reiterated that an order awarding temporary custody of a minor child is not substantively appealable. In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989); cf. NRAP 3A(b)(7) (authorizing an appeal from a district court order finally establishing the custody of minor children).

In plain language

A parent in Elko County tried to appeal two decisions made by the district court in a child-custody dispute. One decision changed (modified) the existing custody arrangement. The other gave the other parent temporary sole custody of the child. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits of either decision. Instead, it dismissed the appeal for two reasons related to its own authority to hear the case. First, the appeal of the order modifying custody was filed too late. Notice that the order had been entered was mailed to the appellant on February 3, 2022. Under the appellate rules, the deadline to file a notice of appeal was March 10, 2022. The appellant did not file the notice of appeal until March 17, 2022 - one week past the deadline. When an appeal is filed late, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction (legal authority) to hear it. Second, the order granting temporary sole custody is not the kind of order that can be appealed at all. Nevada law allows appeals from orders that finally establish custody of children, not from temporary ones. Because of these two jurisdictional problems, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing whether the district court's custody decisions were right or wrong.