IN RE: A.B., JR. AND A.O. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review of the notice of appeal and concluded that no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from the challenged orders. Citing NRAP 3A(b)(7), the court noted that orders requiring continual assessment of custody are generally not appealable. The court further relied on State v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct. (Ayden A.), 132 Nev. 352, 354 n.1, 373 P.3d 63, 64 n.1 (2016), for the proposition that orders resolving NRS 432B abuse and neglect issues are generally not appealable, and on Kirsch v. Traber, 134 Nev. 163, 168, 414 P.3d 818, 822 (2018), for the rule that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not appealable. Applying Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), the court reiterated that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule" and dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

In plain language

Two parents tried to appeal rulings made in a child-welfare case involving their two minor children. The trial court had substantiated a petition for child protection (a finding that supports continued involvement by Child Protective Services) and had denied the parents' motion asking the court to throw out the case for lack of jurisdiction and alleged conflicts of interest, as well as their request for an order telling Child Protective Services to stop what the parents described as duress, coercion, and unethical conduct. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits of any of those arguments. Instead, the court explained that appellate courts in Nevada can only hear appeals that a statute or court rule specifically authorizes. The kinds of orders the parents were trying to appeal - orders in ongoing child-welfare proceedings and an order denying a motion to dismiss - are not on the list of orders that can be appealed. Because the Supreme Court had no authority to hear the case, it dismissed the appeal without deciding whether the trial court was right or wrong.