RODRIGUEZ v. RODRIGUEZ (2022)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

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. Vaile, 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.