RODRIGUEZ VS. RODRIGUEZ (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review under NRAP 3(g) and dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction exists only where authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). The court looked to NRAP 3A(b) and found no provision authorizing an appeal from an order that "solely concerns contempt." The court relied on Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 671 (2000), for the rule that a contempt order entered in an ancillary proceeding is not appealable. It distinguished Vaile v. Vaile, 133 Nev. 213, 217, 369 P.3d 791, 794 (2017), and Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev. 453, 456, 373 P.3d 878, 881 (2016), in which contempt findings and sanctions were reviewable because they were embedded in an order that also modified child custody. Here, the challenged order made "no substantive changes to any of the terms of the parties' custody arrangement"; it addressed contempt, compelled production of the children for visitation and of appellant's address, and imposed attorney fees and costs. Because no appealable substantive ruling accompanied the contempt determination, jurisdiction was lacking and dismissal followed.

In plain language

This is a family-law appeal arising out of a divorce decree that set visitation terms for the parties' children. The father asked the district court to hold the mother in contempt - that is, to find she had disobeyed a court order - for not complying with the visitation terms. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted that request, ordered the mother to bring the children for visitation pick-up, ordered her to disclose her address, and awarded attorney fees and costs against her. The mother, representing herself, tried to appeal that order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of whether the contempt finding was right or wrong. Instead, it explained that it can only hear an appeal when a statute or court rule says an appeal is allowed. In Nevada, an order that deals only with contempt is generally not appealable. Because the order in this case did not change the parties' underlying custody arrangement and dealt only with contempt, attorney fees, and related directives, the court concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it.