F-Law
← Case library

IN RE: A.S. (FAMILY)

25-40543 · 91091 · Nevada (SCOTN/COA) · September 17, 2025

Disposition:Appeal dismissed.Child Welfare

Posture Ryne Seeto appealed an order from the Eighth Judicial District Court (Family Division, Clark County) placing his minor child, A.S., in temporary protective custody pursuant to NRS Chapter 432B. The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed the notices of appeal and documents before it and identified a jurisdictional defect.

Statutes cited

Key holdings

- "Temporary orders in NRS 432B actions are not final and are thus unappealable." - Where the Nevada Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal from a temporary protective custody order, dismissal is required.

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The challenged order placed a minor child in temporary protective custody under NRS Chapter 432B. Citing In re Temp. Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 442, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989), the court reiterated that temporary orders in NRS 432B actions are not final and are therefore unappealable. With no statutory or rule-based authority to entertain the appeal, the court dismissed and denied the appellant's pending September 3, 2025 motion as moot.

In plain language

A parent, Ryne Seeto, tried to appeal a district court decision that placed his child in temporary protective custody. Temporary protective custody is a short-term arrangement under Nevada's child-welfare statutes (NRS Chapter 432B) where a court places a child outside the parent's care while the underlying case continues. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the parent's challenge. Instead, it concluded that it had no authority to hear the appeal at all. Under Nevada law, only certain kinds of district court orders can be appealed - generally, final orders that wrap up a case. A temporary order in a NRS Chapter 432B proceeding is not final, so it cannot be appealed at this stage. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it dismissed the appeal. The court also denied as moot a motion the appellant had filed on September 3, 2025.

Read the full opinion →

This summary is independently verified against the source opinion. It is an informational research aid, not legal advice, and no substitute for reading the decision.