SOVEY VS. HERRICK (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal exists only when authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984); see NRAP 3A(b). The court analyzed whether the December 31, 2024, order fell within NRAP 3A(b)(7), which authorizes appeals from district court orders that finally resolve all pending issues concerning child custody and visitation. Applying that standard, the court concluded the order was not substantively appealable. The order did not adjudicate any modification of custody; it only (1) reviewed the parties' competing arguments, (2) found that respondent made a preliminary showing of a substantial change in circumstances affecting the children's welfare, and (3) determined that a hearing on the motion to modify was warranted. Because whether any formal modification of the custodial arrangement is appropriate remained undecided, the order did not finally resolve the pending custody issues, and no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from an order setting a hearing on a motion to modify child custody or visitation. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied appellant's motion for stay as moot.

In plain language

This is a child-custody case from Washoe County. One parent, Samantha Herrick, asked the family court to change the existing custody or visitation arrangement. The district court reviewed the parents' arguments and decided that Herrick had made a preliminary showing that something had changed substantially in the children's lives - enough to justify holding a hearing to consider whether the custody arrangement should actually be modified. The court did not yet change custody; it just scheduled the matter for a hearing. The other parent, Jacob Sovey, tried to appeal that order to the Nevada Supreme Court right away. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because, under Nevada's appellate rules, parties generally cannot appeal every order a trial court issues - only those orders that a statute or court rule specifically allows to be appealed. An order that merely sets a hearing on a request to modify custody is not on that list. The Supreme Court explained that because the district court has not yet decided whether to actually change the custody arrangement, there is nothing final for the Supreme Court to review. Because the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Sovey's separate request to pause (stay) the lower-court proceedings was denied as moot - meaning there was no longer anything for the Supreme Court to act on.