Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CARMEN BARNES, Appellant, v. MELANIE BROOKHALEY MONTEMAYOR, JUSTIN RYAN ORESKO Respondents.1
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Carmen Barnes appeals from a district court decree of custody. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County; Charles J. Hoskin, Judge.
Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The decree of custody did not resolve all outstanding issues concerning the custody of the child. Specifically, the decree awarded Oresko primary physical custody of the child but directed him to undergo substance abuse testing and that he could not obtain custody of the child until such time as he had three weeks of testing without any positive results. The decree also directed Oresko to obtain suitable housing arrangements for himself and the child before the child could reside with him. Because Oresko must comply with certain conditions before the district court enters a final custody determination in his favor, the custody decree is not a final order for purposes of appeal. See Rennels v. Rennels, 127 Nev. 564, 569, 257 P.3d 396, 399 (2011) (providing that a final order “disposes of the issues presented” leaving “nothing for the future consideration of the court” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sandstrom v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 121 Nev. 657, 659, 119 P.3d 1250, 1252 (2005) (“[A] final order [is] one that disposes of all issues and leaves nothing for future consideration.”). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, see NRAP 3A(b)(7) (providing for an appeal from “[a] final order ․ that pertains to child custody, guardianship of minors, parenting time, visitation, or relocation of a minor, whether from initial proceedings or proceedings after the first final order. An order will be deemed final when all pending issues of child custody, guardianship of minors, parenting time, visitation, or relocation of a minor are resolved”). In the interim, before a final order is entered, the custody decree provides that “Barnes will remain the de facto custodian until Oresko meets the necessary requirements to take over as primary custodian,” and we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
Bulla, C.J.
Gibbons, J.
Westbrook, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 90265-COA
Decided: February 20, 2026
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)