IN RE: A.R. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court addressed appellate jurisdiction over an order entered in a juvenile court proceeding that placed a minor child for adoption and gave effect to a post-adoptive contact agreement. Applying NRAP 3A(b)(7), which authorizes appeals from custody orders "entered in a proceeding that did not arise in a juvenile court" (emphasis in original), the court held that the order at issue - which determined custody of a minor child in a proceeding arising in juvenile court - falls outside the rule's scope and is therefore not appealable. The court relied on Clark Cnty. Dist. Att'y v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 337, 342, 167 P.3d 922, 925 (2007), for the proposition that writ relief is the proper vehicle to challenge a district court placement order issued under NRS Chapter 432B. Because the challenged order is not appealable, the court granted CCDFS's unopposed motion and dismissed the appeal.

In plain language

This case involves an appeal from a juvenile court order that placed a child for adoption and put a post-adoption contact agreement into effect. One of the parties, Ericka D., tried to appeal that order to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Clark County Department of Family Services asked the Supreme Court to throw the appeal out, arguing that the Supreme Court does not have authority to hear an appeal from this kind of order. Nobody opposed that request. The Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the appeal. Under Nevada's appellate rules, custody orders that come out of juvenile court proceedings cannot be appealed directly. The court noted that a party who wants to challenge such an order generally must seek writ relief - a different kind of request asking a higher court to step in - rather than filing a regular appeal. Because the appeal was dismissed, the court also relieved respondent Mary H.-L. of an earlier directive to retain new counsel or notify the court that she would not be doing so.