ROHMILLER VS. AKESON (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This order resolves procedural questions across three related pro se appeals from District Court Case No. D-19-592237-C. The underlying orders are the December 7, 2025 order denying a motion to modify child custody and the May 15, 2026 order denying motions to rehear, reconsider, or set aside the custody order. Following the court's April 27, 2026 order directing resolution of pending postjudgment motions and suspending briefing, jurisdiction in Docket No. 92490 now appears complete, and the court reinstated fast track briefing. The court consolidated Docket Nos. 92490 and 92888 under NRAP 3(b)(2), finding the May 15 order appeal arose from the same district court case and involved the same parties and counsel. Appellant was directed to file a single child custody fast track opening brief addressing the issues in both dockets within 40 days, with further briefing to proceed under NRAP 3E(d)(1) and NRAP 3E(d), (e). Concluding that review of the complete record was warranted under NRAP 10(a)(1), the court directed the district court clerk to transmit a certified copy of the trial court record within 30 days, citing NRAP 11(a)(2) for the requirement that the record contain each and every paper, pleading and other document filed in, or submitted for filing in, the district court, as well as any previously prepared transcripts, and citing NRAP 11(a)(1) to exclude original exhibits. As to Docket No. 92643, the court determined that appellant's notice of appeal challenged the same orders as the notice of appeal in Docket No. 92490. Finding the appeals duplicative, the court dismissed the appeal in Docket No. 92643 in favor of the appeal in Docket No. 92490.

In plain language

This is a case about a parent's attempt to change a child custody arrangement. Tina Leah Rohmiller asked the district court to modify the custody order in her case, but on December 7, 2025, the district court said no. She then filed several follow-up motions asking the court to reconsider, rehear, or undo that decision. While her appeal was pending, the Supreme Court of Nevada told the lower court (on April 27, 2026) to first resolve those pending follow-up motions and paused the briefing schedule - the written arguments that each side files. The district court then denied those follow-up motions on May 15, 2026. In this order, the court cleaned up and organized the multiple related appeals Rohmiller had filed. It found that the appeal in one docket (No. 92490) was now ready to move forward, so it restarted the briefing schedule. Because a second appeal (No. 92888) came from the same court case and involved the same people, the court combined - "consolidated" - the two appeals so they would be handled together. Rohmiller was given 40 days to file a single opening brief covering the issues in both. The court also ordered the district court clerk to send up a complete copy of the trial court record so the justices can review everything that was filed below. Finally, the court noticed that a third appeal (No. 92643) challenged the very same orders as the appeal in Docket No. 92490. Because it was a duplicate, the court dismissed the appeal in Docket No. 92643, letting the appeal in Docket No. 92490 proceed instead. No decision was made on whether custody should actually be changed; this order deals only with how the appeals will proceed.