IN RE: S.K. AND Z.K. (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court dismissed sua sponte for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Reaffirming that it "may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule," the court relied on Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013), and concluded that no statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from a district court order that sustains NRS 432B allegations, sets a dispositional hearing, finds children in need of protection under NRS 432B.330, and places them in DCFS custody. The court cited In re Temporary Custody of Five Minors, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989), and noted NRAP 3A(b)(7), which allows appeals from child custody orders that did not arise in juvenile court - implicitly distinguishing the order at issue, which arose in a NRS 432B child-protection proceeding. With jurisdiction lacking, the court dismissed the appeal and denied as moot the appellant's motions filed September 4 and 14, 2025.

In plain language

A father tried to appeal a decision from a Nye County district court in a child-welfare case. In that lower-court decision, the judge agreed with allegations against the father, scheduled the next hearing (a "dispositional hearing," where the court decides what should happen long-term with the children), found that the two children needed protection, and placed them with a state child-welfare agency. The Nevada Supreme Court did not decide whether the lower court was right or wrong. Instead, it concluded that it does not have the power - "jurisdiction" - to hear this particular appeal at all. In Nevada, a person can only appeal to the Supreme Court when a statute or court rule specifically allows that type of appeal. The court found no statute or rule that allows an appeal from this kind of mid-case child-protection order. Because of that, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits. The court also denied as moot two motions the appellant had filed in September 2025.