OLSEN VS. OLSEN (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed this pro se appeal from a family-court relocation order for failure to prosecute. After granting counsel's motion to withdraw on January 19, 2024, the court suspended briefing and directed appellant to advise whether he would retain new counsel or proceed pro se, with notice that failure to respond could result in dismissal. Appellant did not respond. A follow-up order on March 21, 2024 imposed a 14-day deadline with a renewed dismissal warning. Appellant again did not comply or communicate. The court concluded that appellant had abandoned the appeal and ordered it dismissed. The order does not address the merits of the relocation ruling and does not reach any substantive child-custody or relocation doctrine.

In plain language

This case began when a Clark County family court judge granted Juniper Olsen's request to relocate with the parties' minor children. John Olsen appealed that decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, John Olsen's lawyer asked to withdraw from representing him. On January 19, 2024, the Supreme Court allowed the lawyer to withdraw, paused the briefing schedule, and told Olsen to let the court know whether he would hire a new lawyer or represent himself. The court warned him that if he did not respond, his appeal could be dismissed. Olsen did not respond. On March 21, 2024, the court tried again, giving him 14 days to either have a new attorney file a notice of appearance or notify the court in writing that he would proceed on his own. The court repeated its warning that failing to comply could end the appeal. Olsen still did not respond or communicate with the court in any way. Concluding that he had abandoned the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it. The result is that the underlying district court order allowing relocation with the children stands, because the appeal challenging it has been terminated without a decision on the merits.