MARTIN VS. MARTIN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court evaluated its jurisdiction sua sponte under NRAP 3A(b), reaffirming that the Nevada Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals authorized by statute or court rule. See Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 100 Nev. 207, 209, 678 P.2d 1152, 1153 (1984). The court held that no statute authorizes an appeal from an order appointing a parenting coordinator. As to NRAP 3A(b)(7), which permits appeal from a special order after final judgment in custody matters, the court concluded that the appointment order did not "finally establish[ ] or alter[ ] the custody of minor children." The court further held the order was not an appealable special order after final judgment under the standard articulated in Vargas v. J Morales Inc., 138 Nev. 384, 386, 510 P.3d 777, 779 (2022) (quoting Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002)), because it did not affect rights "growing out of the judgment previously-entered . . . affecting rights incorporated in the judgment" - here, the parties' rights under the divorce decree. Lacking statutory or rule-based jurisdiction, the court dismissed the appeal. The court's prior order in Martin v. Martin, No. 85323, 2023 WL 3055103 (Nev. Apr. 21, 2023), had previously approved the underlying decision to appoint a parenting coordinator.

In plain language

Michael and Danielle Martin divorced in 2017 and have three children. In an earlier appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court approved the district court's decision to appoint a "parenting coordinator" - a neutral person who helps divorced parents work through disagreements about raising their kids. The district court then issued an order formally appointing the coordinator and setting the terms of that appointment. Michael asked the district court to relieve him from that order; the court refused, and he appealed. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of Michael's complaints about the appointment. Instead, it concluded that it had no power - no "jurisdiction" - to hear the appeal at all. In Nevada, you can only appeal from the kinds of orders that a statute or court rule specifically allows you to appeal. No statute permits an appeal from an order appointing a parenting coordinator. And the court rule that allows appeals from certain post-judgment orders in custody cases (NRAP 3A(b)(7)) only applies when the order "finally establish[es] or alter[s] the custody of minor children" - which, the court explained, this appointment order did not do. Because the order also did not affect rights coming out of the original divorce decree, no other rule allowed an appeal either. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.