IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF B.T. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Citing 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 rule. The notice of appeal identified a July 31, 2025, district court order, but the docket showed no order entered that day - only the State's report for permanency and placement review. The amended notice identified an August 21, 2025, order that likewise did not exist on the docket. Construing the filings liberally to reach the order after permanency hearing entered August 6, 2025, the court held that no statute or rule authorizes an appeal from such an order, relying on In re Guardianship of Wittler, 135 Nev. 237, 238-39, 445 P.3d 852, 854 (2019), which dismissed an appeal from a temporary guardianship order and observed that "this court has consistently concluded that temporary orders subject to periodic review are not appealable" and "temporary guardianship orders are unsuitable for appellate review." Because no appealable order existed, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and denied as moot the October 30, 2025, motion to dismiss and motion for extension of time to file an answering brief.

In plain language

A mother (or other interested party) named Shyeuna Vance tried to appeal a decision from a Clark County district court in a case involving a child, B.T. She filed her appeal paperwork without a lawyer. The Nevada Supreme Court can only hear appeals when a statute or court rule says it can. When the court checked the district court's records, it found problems with what Vance was trying to appeal. Her first notice of appeal said she was challenging an order entered July 31, 2025, but no order was entered in the district court on that date - the only thing filed that day was a report from the State about the child's permanency and placement. Her amended notice of appeal pointed to an order from August 21, 2025, but again, the district court did not enter any order on that day either. The closest actual order in the record was an "order after permanency hearing" entered August 6, 2025. The Supreme Court explained that no statute or rule allows an appeal from that kind of order. Citing its earlier decision involving a temporary guardianship, the court reiterated that temporary orders subject to periodic review are not the kind of orders an appellate court can review. Because there was no appealable order, the Supreme Court concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. A pending motion to dismiss filed by another party and a motion to extend the briefing schedule were denied as moot.