IN RE: C. X. T. (2020)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from a district court order, entered in a NRS Chapter 432B matter, directing appellants to produce their children for family therapy and to comply with the terms of a stipulation and order for sibling contact. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Cynthia N. Giuliani, Judge.

This court's review of the docketing statement revealed a potential jurisdictional defect; it appeared that the challenged order was not substantively appealable. In response, appellants contend that the order is appealable as a final judgment, see NRAP 3A(b)(1), and under NRAP 3A(b)(7). However, the challenged order does not finally resolve the juvenile protection case. See Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 426, 996 P.2d 416, 417 (2000) (defining a final judgment). And because the challenged order was entered in a juvenile protection proceeding, it is not appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(7). See NRAP 3A(b)(7) (allowing appeals from orders “entered in a proceeding that did not arise in a juvenile court that finally establishes or alters the custody of minor children.”). Moreover, orders entered in the context of NRS Chapter 432B proceedings are not appealable. See 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 therefore, [the] only remedy is by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus.”); Clark Cty. Dist. Attorney v. Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 337, 346, 167 P.3d 922, 928 (2007) (considering a petition for extraordinary relief after recognizing that the challenged order, entered under NRS Chapter 432B, is not appealable); Matter of Guardianship of N.S., 122 Nev. 305, 311, 130 P.3d 657, 667 (2006) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy when challenging an order arising in a juvenile proceeding). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.