IN RE: PETITION OF THOMAS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the pro se appeal for failure to prosecute after the appellant did not comply with filing obligations under NRAP 14 (docketing statement) and NRAP 3E(d)(1) (fast track statement in child custody appeals). The clerk's April 20, 2023 notice set deadlines of May 11, 2023 and May 30, 2023, respectively. Following noncompliance, the court issued a June 13, 2023 order directing compliance by June 20, 2023, with an express warning that failure to comply could result in sanctions including dismissal for abandonment. The appellant neither filed the required documents nor communicated with the court. On those facts, the court found abandonment and dismissed the appeal. The order does not reach any substantive child custody issue and announces no new doctrinal rule; it applies the court's standard practice for managing noncompliant appeals.

In plain language

This is a short procedural order, not a decision on the merits of any custody dispute. When someone appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court, the court's clerk sends a notice listing documents the appellant must file to keep the appeal moving - here, a "docketing statement" (a form that gives the court basic information about the case) and a "fast track statement" (a streamlined brief used in certain family-law appeals). According to the order, on April 20, 2023, the clerk told Courtney Thomas to file the docketing statement by May 11, 2023, and the fast track statement by May 30, 2023. Thomas did not file them. On June 13, 2023, the court issued a follow-up order giving Thomas until June 20, 2023, to file both documents and warning that not doing so could lead to sanctions, including dismissal. Thomas still did not file the documents and did not otherwise contact the court. Because the required filings never came in, the Supreme Court treated the appeal as abandoned and dismissed it. The order does not address the underlying child-custody issues from the family court.