IN RE: K.B. AND Z. C.-H. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed the appeal sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction following its initial jurisdictional review of the notices of appeal. The order on review was a district court order for protective custody of minor children entered after a hearing held pursuant to NRS Chapter 432B. The court applied two independent jurisdictional bars. First, under NRAP 3A(b)(7), an order concluding NRS Chapter 432B proceedings is not appealable because it arises in the juvenile court and concerns child custody. Second, temporary orders in NRS 432B actions are not final and therefore are not appealable, citing In re Temp. Custody of Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989). The court reiterated that the proper vehicle for challenging such orders is a writ petition, quoting In re A.B., 128 Nev. 764, 769, 291 P.3d 122, 126 (2012): "[B]ecause the lower court's order arises from a juvenile proceeding and concerns child custody, it is not substantively appealable under NRAP 3A, and therefor, [the] only remedy is by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus."

In plain language

This case involves an appeal from a Clark County family court order placing two minor children in protective custody under Nevada's child welfare statutes (NRS Chapter 432B). Three appellants - Gregory C., Misha H., and Zachary B. - tried to challenge that order by filing a direct appeal with the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of whether the protective custody order was appropriate. Instead, the court concluded it had no authority (no "jurisdiction") to hear the appeal at all. Under Nevada's appellate rules, orders that come out of juvenile court and concern child custody cannot be challenged by a regular appeal. On top of that, temporary orders in NRS 432B cases are not considered "final" - and only final orders are generally appealable. The court explained that a party who wants to challenge this kind of order must instead file a "writ petition" - a separate type of request asking a higher court to order the lower court to act, rather than a standard appeal. Because the appellants filed the wrong type of challenge, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without deciding anything about the underlying custody dispute.