WOODY VS. RUBIO (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is a procedural dismissal for failure to prosecute a pro se child-custody appeal. After issuing a January 16, 2026 notice setting deadlines for a transcript request form (or certificate of no transcript request), a docketing statement, and a fast track or informal opening brief, and after issuing a February 10, 2026 order giving appellant an additional 7 days and warning that noncompliance could result in dismissal, the court found that appellant had filed none of the required documents and had also missed the March 17, 2026 fast track opening brief deadline. The court dismissed the appeal as abandoned, citing NRAP 3E(1) and NRAP 14(c). The order contains no merits analysis.

In plain language

A mother, Briana Marie Woody, tried to appeal a Clark County district court order that decided custody of her minor child. She was representing herself, without a lawyer. When someone files an appeal in Nevada, the Supreme Court requires certain paperwork early in the case so the appeal can move forward. On January 16, 2026, the court told Ms. Woody she needed to file three things on specific deadlines: a form about ordering transcripts of the lower-court proceedings (or a certificate saying no transcripts were needed), a "docketing statement" (a form describing the case), and an opening brief explaining why the lower court got it wrong. She did not file the transcript form or the docketing statement on time. On February 10, 2026, the court gave her another 7 days and warned her that if she still did not file them, the appeal could be dismissed. She did not file them. She also missed the March 17, 2026 deadline for her opening brief. Because nothing was filed, the Supreme Court concluded she had abandoned the appeal and dismissed it. The court did not address the merits of the custody dispute.