Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (Child Custody)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedMay 26, 2022
Docket84672
StatusPublished

This text of Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (Child Custody) (Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (Child Custody)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (Child Custody), (Neb. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANA ROSA RODRIGUEZ, No. 84672 Appellant, vs. EMMANUEL RODRIGUEZ, FILED Respondent. MAY 6 2022 1 A. BROWN EME COUR-1

CLEN17

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is a pro se appeal from an order granting respondent's motion to hold appellant in contempt, directing appellant to appear and produce children for pick up, directing appellant to produce her address, and for attorney fees and costs. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Michele Mercer, Judge. Review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the order is not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule. Taylor Constr. Co. v. Hilton Hotels, 100 Nev. 207, 678 P.2d 1152 (1984). Appellant challenges an order entered after an evidentiary hearing on an order to show cause holding her in contempt for failing to comply with the terms of visitation in the divorce decree, directing appellant to produce the children for visitation, directing her to produce her address, and imposing attorney fees. No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order that solely concerns contempt. See Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Assn, 116 Nev. 646, 649, 5 P.3d 569, 671 (2000) (recognizing that a contempt order entered in an ancillary proceeding is not appealable); compare Vaile v. Valle, 133 Nev. 213, 217, 369 P.3d 791, 794 (2017); and Lewis v. Lewis, 132 Nev. 453, 456, 373 P.3d 878, 881 (2016) (considering challenges to contempt findings and sanctions in an order that modified child custody). The order makes no substantive changes to any of the terms of the parties custody arrangement. This court lacks jurisdiction and therefore ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.

‘tkiLe,,,LEAD 1 J. Silver .

1 J. Cadish

, J.

cc: Hon. Michele Mercer, District Judge, Family Court Division Ana Rosa Rodriguez Smith Legal Group Eighth District Court Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION CO. v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
678 P.2d 1152 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1984)
Pengilly v. Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Ass'n
5 P.3d 569 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2000)
Legro v. Robinson
2015 COA 183 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (Child Custody), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-v-rodriguez-child-custody-nev-2022.