MERKERSON VS. RIVERS (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an order dismissing a pro se appeal from a child custody decree for failure to prosecute. The court recounts a sequence of compliance orders: (1) an August 26, 2024, order extending time to file the docketing statement (21 days) and the child custody fast track statement (45 days); (2) a September 9, 2024, transcript order directing the appellant within 14 days to file a transcript request form, pay the deposit on the previously requested January 23, 2024, transcript, notify the court if transcripts were no longer required, and file copies of any received transcripts, while reminding him of the October 10, 2024, fast track statement deadline; and (3) an October 23, 2024, order requiring compliance within 14 days, citing NRAP 14, NRAP 3E(c)(3), and NRAP 3E(d)(1), and warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal for abandonment. Because the appellant neither complied nor communicated with the court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as abandoned. The order does not reach the merits of the custody decree.

In plain language

A father, representing himself, tried to appeal a Clark County family court ruling about child custody. To move an appeal forward in the Nevada Supreme Court, the appealing party has to file certain paperwork on a schedule - including a "docketing statement" (a basic information form about the case) and, in child custody appeals, a "fast track statement" (a streamlined brief explaining the issues). The appellant also has to deal with trial transcripts: either order them, pay the deposit, or tell the court he does not need them. The Supreme Court gave Merkerson extra time to file these documents in August 2024. In September 2024, it issued another order telling him what to do about transcripts and reminding him of the October 10, 2024, fast track statement deadline. When he missed those deadlines, the court issued a third order in October 2024 giving him 14 more days and warning him that the appeal could be dismissed if he did not comply. Merkerson did not file the required documents and did not communicate with the court. Concluding that he had abandoned the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it. The dismissal does not address the merits of the underlying custody decree; it ends this appeal because the appellant did not pursue it.