Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: THE PETITION FOR ADOPTION BY: THOMAS CASS AND MIRIAM SANDOVAL CASS THOMAS CASS AND MIRIAM SANDOVAL CASS, Appellants.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a petition for adoption without prejudice. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, Clark County; Stacy Michelle Rocheleau, Judge.
Initial review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, the order appealed from is not a substantively appealable final judgment. NRAP 3A(b)(1) (allowing an appeal from a final judgment); NRAP 3A(b)(7) (allowing appeals only from orders that finally resolve child custody issues). The district court's June 17, 2025, order raised questions regarding the biological father's consent to terminate his parental rights. Thus, the district court denied appellants’ petition for adoption “without prejudice” and noted that appellants “may re-set their adoption hearing once a new consent of [the] biological father ․ is filed or they may bring him to the hearing to testify regarding his consent.” Because the order essentially denied appellants’ petition for adoption with leave to amend the petition, it is not a final, appealable order. See Matter of Guardianship of Rubin. 137 Nev. 288, 290, 491 P.3d 1, 4 (2021) (construing an order denying a guardianship petition without prejudice as allowing leave to amend the petition, such that the order was interlocutory and not appealable); Bergenfield v. BAC Horne Loans Servicing, LP, 131 Nev. 683, 685, 354 P.3d 1282, 1284 (2015) (holding that “a district court order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not final and appealable”). No other statute or court rule allows for an appeal of the district court's June 17, 2025, order. See Brown v. MHC Stagecoach, LLC, 129 Nev. 343, 345, 301 P.3d 850, 851 (2013) (this court “may only consider appeals authorized by statute or court rule”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and
ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.1
Parraguirre, J.
Bell, J.
Stiglich, J.
FOOTNOTES
1. Given this dismissal, appellants’ motion filed on September 22, 2025, is denied as moot.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 90703
Decided: September 29, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)