IN RE: R.A.B AND A.R.O. (CHILD CUSTODY)

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reiterated the threshold rule that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," quoting Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013). Orders concerning child custody arising from juvenile proceedings are not substantively appealable under NRAP 3A, citing In re A.B., 128 Nev. 764, 769, 291 P.3d 122, 126 (2012), which in turn relied on Matter of Guardianship of N.S., 122 Nev. 305, 311, 130 P.3d 657, 661 (2006). The appellant conceded that NRAP 3A was not the proper appealability provision and urged amendment of the code to NRAP 3E. The court rejected that approach, holding that NRAP 3E "governs the processing and briefing of appeals of child custody and visitation orders" but "does not authorize appeals from child custody orders or otherwise relate to jurisdiction." Asserted prejudice or irreparable harm cannot supply appellate jurisdiction. Citing Moran v. Bonneville Square Assocs., 117 Nev. 525, 527, 25 P.3d 898, 899 (2001), the court reaffirmed that the burden rests on the party invoking the court's jurisdiction to establish it. In a footnote, the court clarified that a settlement judge under NRAP 16 does not finally determine the court's jurisdiction, and that the order reinstating briefing was entered by the court itself and contained no jurisdictional analysis.

In plain language

This case involves an attempt to appeal a decision made in a juvenile court case about where minor children should be placed. The appellant, Gidget Stevens-Parker, asked the Nevada Supreme Court to review a district court order that denied her motion to have the children placed with her. Before deciding whether the lower court was right or wrong, the Supreme Court has to confirm that it has the legal authority - "jurisdiction" - to hear the appeal at all. Not every district court ruling can be appealed; Nevada's appellate rules list which kinds of orders are appealable. The Supreme Court flagged that orders about child custody that come out of juvenile proceedings are not on the list of appealable orders under NRAP 3A, and asked the appellant to explain why the appeal should be allowed to go forward. In her response, the appellant agreed that the rule she had cited (NRAP 3A) was not the right one and asked the court to switch the appealability code to NRAP 3E. She also argued the appeal should not be dismissed because dismissal would cause her serious harm. The Supreme Court explained that NRAP 3E only governs how child custody appeals are processed and briefed once they are properly before the court - it does not itself create a right to appeal. Because no rule or statute authorizes an appeal from this kind of juvenile-proceeding custody order, and because hardship to a party cannot create jurisdiction where none exists, the court dismissed the appeal. The court also addressed a side point: the appellant suggested that a settlement judge had already decided there was no jurisdictional problem when briefing was reinstated. The court explained that settlement judges do not have the authority to make final jurisdictional determinations, and that the order reinstating briefing came from the court itself and did not analyze jurisdiction.