IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION BY: CASS (FAMILY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court conducted a sua sponte jurisdictional review and dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Appealability in Nevada is limited to those orders authorized by statute or court rule. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). The court analyzed two potential bases under NRAP 3A(b): NRAP 3A(b)(1), which authorizes appeals from final judgments, and NRAP 3A(b)(7), which authorizes appeals from orders that finally resolve child custody issues. The June 17, 2025, order denied the adoption petition without prejudice, raised questions about the biological father's consent, and expressly invited appellants to re-set the hearing once a new consent was filed or to bring the biological father in to testify. The court characterized this as the functional equivalent of a denial with leave to amend, rendering it interlocutory. The court relied on Matter of Guardianship of Rubin, 137 Nev. 288, 290, 491 P.3d 1, 4 (2021), which construed an order denying a guardianship petition without prejudice as allowing leave to amend and therefore non-appealable, and on Bergenfield v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 131 Nev. 683, 685, 354 P.3d 1282, 1284 (2015), which held that "a district court order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not final and appealable." Finding no other statute or rule authorizing the appeal, the court dismissed. The appellants' September 22, 2025, motion was denied as moot.

In plain language

Thomas Cass and Miriam Sandoval Cass asked a Clark County family court to approve an adoption. The district court did not approve the adoption. Instead, on June 17, 2025, it denied the petition "without prejudice" - meaning the couple could try again - because there were questions about whether the child's biological father had properly consented to give up his parental rights. The district court told the couple they could reset the adoption hearing once a new consent from the biological father was filed, or they could bring him to court to testify about his consent. The couple then appealed that denial to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the merits of whether the adoption should be granted. Instead, it concluded it had no power to hear the appeal at all. Under Nevada's appellate rules, a person can generally appeal only from a "final" decision - one that ends the case. Because the district court's order left the door open for the couple to fix the consent problem and bring the petition again, the Supreme Court treated it as the equivalent of a dismissal with leave to amend, which is not final. With no final order and no other statute or rule giving the court jurisdiction, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The court also denied as moot a motion the appellants filed on September 22, 2025.