IN RE: E.W.B., E.W.B., A.W.B., A.W.B., AND T.B. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the settled rule that appellate jurisdiction exists only where authorized by statute or court rule, citing Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). Applying that framework, the court relied on In re Temporary Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 777 P.2d 901 (1989), for the proposition that "[o]rders granting petitions for temporary custody pursuant to NRS Chapter 432B are not substantively appealable." Because the order on review was such a temporary custody order, the court held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. In a footnote, the court denied as moot the State's motion to dismiss and appellants' motion for stay. The court additionally observed an apparent service defect: the State's certificate of service indicated service "and/or" by email, and the record contained no indication that appellants had consented to email service as required by NRAP 25(c)(2)(B). The court admonished that certificates of service should unambiguously identify the method of service and that "the use of 'and/or' is strongly discouraged."

In plain language

Two parents tried to appeal a Nevada family court ruling that gave Clark County Family Services temporary custody of their five children. They filed the appeal themselves, without an attorney. The Nevada Supreme Court did not reach the merits of whether the temporary custody order was right or wrong. Instead, the court explained that it can only hear appeals when a statute or court rule specifically allows them. Because no statute or rule allows an appeal from a temporary custody order entered under Nevada's child welfare statutes (NRS Chapter 432B), the court concluded it had no power - no "jurisdiction" - to consider the appeal at all, and dismissed it. The court also noted a procedural concern about how the State served its motion to dismiss on the parents. The State's certificate of service said the parents were served "and/or" by email, but the rules require that a party consent to email service before it can be used. The court flagged that using "and/or" in a certificate of service is "strongly discouraged" because it leaves the manner of service unclear. Because the appeal was being dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, however, the State's motion to dismiss and the parents' motion for a stay were denied as moot.