ISBILL VS. HERNANDEZ (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute after appellant did not comply with deadlines for the transcript request form (or certificate of no transcript), the docketing statement, and the fast track opening brief. The November 14, 2025 notice set the standard initial deadlines (14, 21, and 60 days respectively). After noncompliance, the court issued a December 15, 2025 order setting a December 29, 2025 deadline and warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. Appellant filed neither the transcript-related document nor the docketing statement, and the opening brief due January 13, 2026 was likewise not filed. The court treated these failures as abandonment of the appeal and dismissed. The order is unpublished and contains no doctrinal analysis, no standard-of-review discussion, and no statutory or case citations.

In plain language

This is a short procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of any custody or fee dispute. Haleigh Isbill filed an appeal in the Nevada Supreme Court without an attorney, challenging a Clark County family court order that had denied her child custody motions and her request for attorney fees and costs. When someone files an appeal, the Supreme Court requires certain paperwork early in the case: a transcript request form (or a statement that no transcript is needed), a docketing statement (a basic information form about the case), and an opening brief (the document explaining why the lower court got it wrong). On November 14, 2025, the court told Isbill when each of those documents was due. She did not file the transcript form or the docketing statement on time. On December 15, 2025, the court gave her a second deadline of December 29, 2025, and warned that missing it could lead to dismissal. She still did not file those documents, and she also did not file her opening brief by its January 13, 2026 deadline. Concluding that she had abandoned the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it. The order does not address the substance of the custody or fee dispute.