MOSS VS. BOURNE (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the settled rule that appellate jurisdiction exists only when authorized by statute or court rule, citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). The challenged order temporarily modified child custody and contemplated further proceedings at a May 2025 evidentiary hearing; it also did not resolve the domestication issue. The court found no jurisdictional hook under NRAP 3A(b)(1) (final judgments) or NRAP 3A(b)(7) (orders finally establishing or finally altering custody of a minor child outside juvenile proceedings). Citing In re Temp. Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989), the court reiterated that temporary orders subject to review and modification by the district court are not appealable. The burden to establish jurisdiction rests on the appellant. See Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001). The court declined to convert the appeal into a writ petition, noting Moss may file a mandamus petition under NRAP 21 if warranted, and expressly reserved any view on writ availability or merits.

In plain language

Joseph Moss tried to appeal a Clark County family court ruling that involved both registering an out-of-state judgment in Nevada (called "domesticating" a foreign judgment) and child custody. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the paperwork and noticed a problem: the order Moss was appealing was only a temporary custody change, and the family court had scheduled an evidentiary hearing for May 2025 to take more evidence and revisit the custody question. The order also did not resolve the domestication issue. The Supreme Court asked Moss to explain why the appeal should not be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction - meaning the court's legal authority to hear the case. Moss argued that the district court "has treated the matter as a final judgment." The Supreme Court rejected that argument, pointing out that the district court had scheduled a future hearing precisely because the custody decision was not final. Because Nevada appellate courts can only hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically authorizes, and no statute or rule allows an appeal from a temporary custody order, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court also denied Moss's request to treat the appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus (a separate kind of court order) but noted he may file such a petition under the appellate rules if he chooses.