UNDERWOOD VS VERNON (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the settled rule that appellate jurisdiction in Nevada exists only where conferred by statute or court rule, citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). It then surveyed NRAP 3A(b), which enumerates appealable orders and judgments, and found no provision authorizing an appeal from a pickup order or an order for return of a minor child. The court further analogized by reference to In re Temporary Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989), for the proposition that no appeal may be taken from a temporary order subject to periodic mandatory review. Finding the challenged orders not substantively appealable, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without reaching any merits issue.

In plain language

This is a child custody matter that never reached the merits on appeal. The father, Ricardo Underwood, representing himself, tried to appeal two orders from a Washoe County family court judge: a "pickup order" and an "order for return of minor child." Those are interim orders family courts use to secure the physical return or transfer of a child while a custody case is ongoing. The Nevada Supreme Court did not decide whether the family court was right or wrong about the child. Instead, it concluded it had no power to hear the appeal at all. In Nevada, you cannot appeal every order a trial court issues. You can appeal only when a statute or court rule specifically says that type of order is appealable. The Supreme Court found that no statute or rule allows an appeal from the kinds of orders Mr. Underwood was challenging, so it dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.