The Nevada Supreme Court issued an order Jan. 8 allowing an appeal to proceed in a child protection case involving three minor children identified as N.D., G.D., and M.D., along with the Clark County Department of Family Services challenging a juvenile court's dismissal of their child protection petition.
The case, *In the Matter of Children N.D., G.D., and M.D.* (No. 90392), centers on a dispute over child welfare protections under Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 432B, which governs child protection proceedings in the state. The original petition sought court intervention to protect the three children from their father, Kevin John D.
Judge Robert Teuton of the Eighth Judicial District Court's Family Division in Clark County had dismissed the child protection petition, prompting both the children and the county's family services department to file appeals. The Nevada Supreme Court's jurisdictional prescreening process determines whether appeals meet the legal requirements to proceed to full review by the high court.
In its brief order, the Supreme Court wrote that appellants are challenging "a juvenile court order dismissing a petition for child protection under NRS Chapter 432B." The court referenced precedent from *In re A.B.*, a 2012 Nevada Supreme Court decision that addressed similar child protection appeals procedures.
The children are represented by the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, with attorney Ellie Roohani handling their case. Clark County District Attorney Steven B. Wolfson and Chief Deputy District Attorney Megan Miller are representing the Clark County Department of Family Services in the appeal. The father, Kevin John D., is represented by Jerome R. Bowen of Bowen Law Offices in Las Vegas.
Nevada's Chapter 432B provides the legal framework for child protection proceedings, establishing procedures for when government agencies believe children are at risk of abuse or neglect. These cases typically involve complex family dynamics and require courts to balance parental rights with child safety concerns.
Child protection appeals often arise when parties disagree with trial court decisions about whether state intervention is necessary to protect children. In this case, both the children themselves and the county family services department believed the juvenile court erred in dismissing the protection petition, suggesting they wanted continued court oversight or intervention in the family situation.
The Supreme Court's decision to allow the appeal to proceed means the case will receive full appellate review. The justices hearing the case are Chief Justice Kristina Pickering, Justice Lidia Stiglich Cadish, and Justice Patricia Lee. Justice Pickering authored the brief order announcing the court's decision to grant jurisdictional prescreening.
Juvenile court proceedings involving child protection are typically confidential to protect the privacy of minor children involved. The use of initials rather than full names for the children follows standard practice in such cases. Similarly, the father is identified only by his first and middle names followed by his last initial.
The case reflects ongoing challenges in Nevada's child welfare system, where courts must navigate complex decisions about when government intervention is appropriate to protect children while preserving family integrity when possible. Child protection cases often involve allegations of abuse, neglect, or other circumstances that may endanger a child's welfare.
The dismissal of the original petition by the juvenile court suggests Judge Teuton determined that the evidence or circumstances did not warrant continued state intervention in the family. However, the decision by both the children and the county department to appeal indicates disagreement with that assessment.
Appellate review in child protection cases typically focuses on whether the trial court properly applied relevant statutes and legal standards in making its determination. The Nevada Supreme Court will examine the juvenile court's reasoning and determine whether the dismissal was legally appropriate based on the evidence and applicable law.
The outcome of this appeal could have implications for how Nevada courts handle similar child protection cases going forward. Supreme Court decisions in this area often provide guidance to trial courts about the proper standards and procedures for evaluating when state intervention is necessary to protect children.
While the specific allegations or circumstances that led to the original protection petition are not detailed in the Supreme Court's order, the case represents the type of difficult family law matter that requires careful judicial consideration of competing interests and complex factual situations.
The Nevada Supreme Court's decision to allow the appeal to proceed ensures that the important questions raised about child protection procedures and standards will receive full appellate review, potentially clarifying legal standards for future similar cases in the state.