*276OPINION

By the Court,

The subject of this action is a foundling child who was abandoned in a garbage container in Battle Mountain, Lander County, Nevada.

On September 8, 1972, the Third Judicial District Court, which encompasses Lander County, ordered that the juvenile master of Lander County be granted the physical care, custody and control of the child along with the power to make “such provisions for said child as its best interests shall indicate.” The order further stated that care, custody and control of the child “be assigned to the Nevada State Welfare Department [welfare division of the department of health, welfare and rehabilitation] for the benefit of the above minor child.”

On September 11, 1972, the child was placed in the home of the respondents who reside in Winnemucca, Humboldt County, Nevada, which is located within the Sixth Judicial District. They operated a licensed foster home and the child was placed with them as a foster child.

On April 30, 1973, they petitioned the Sixth Judicial District Court for permission to adopt the child. The Honorable Llewellyn Young, District Judge, by restraining order, directed the welfare division of the department of health, welfare and rehabilitation (now department of human resources) to cease its efforts to remove the child from the foster home.1

The welfare division asserts on appeal that the Sixth Judicial District Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the petition on adoption on the ground that NRS 62.040, NRS 62.070 and Dickerson v. Short, 74 Nev. 250, 328 P.2d 299 (1959), *277estop that district court from entertaining an adoption matter that arose from another county and district court, to wit, Lander County, Third Judicial District. We do not agree.

Nevada’s Juvenile Court Act specifically enumerates in NRS 62.0402 when a district court sitting as a juvenile court has exclusive and original jurisdiction. One of those instances of jurisdiction is the abandonment of a child, who is then deemed “neglected” in the parlance of the Juvenile Act. Our legislature has been equally explicit in providing the district courts with original jurisdiction in adoption proceedings. NRS 127.010.3

Appellant’s argument that NRS 62.0704 prevents another court from wresting jurisdiction over the child from the juvenile court is correct only as to the particular instance of jurisdiction, i.e., neglect, originally asserted in the juvenile court. The ruling in Dickerson, supra, is not dispositive of the issue we now consider, for in that case a district court in Washoe County made an order inconsistent with a prior order of a district court in Elko County, and therein asserted the same jurisdictional grounds already asserted in Elko County. Here, the jurisdictional grounds for the adoption proceedings in Humboldt County are entirely different from those claimed in the Lander County Juvenile Court proceedings. The Juvenile Court Act’s grant of exclusive and original jurisdiction is limited and does not preclude other state courts from exercising their statutorily authorized jurisdiction. Anderson v. Anderson, 416 P.2d 308 (Utah 1966). The prospective parents’ petition for adoption effectively invoked the jurisdiction of the Sixth Judicial District Court.

Appellant further challenges the Sixth Judicial District Court’s jurisdiction as a derogation of the function of the welfare division as an adoption agency and as custodian of a *278juvenile. See NRS 62.200(1) (b) and NRS 127.051. The adoption statutes do not support the department’s claim that adoption proceedings are the exclusive province of the welfare division.

Nevada law provides that any two married persons, among others, may petition the district court to adopt a child. NRS 127.030.5 After receiving notice and a copy of such petition, it is then the province of the welfare division to verify the allegations of the petition and complete a background investigation of both the prospective parents and the child. NRS 127.120.6 After the welfare division’s findings and recommendation as to the adoption are weighed by the court against the allegations of the petition, the court makes a final decision on the adoption. NRS 127.150.7 The role of the welfare division is one of advisor to the court, not decision maker.

*279Other issues respecting the merits of the adoption proceeding are not properly before this court, either by way of appeal from the preliminary injunction, or by means of the parties’ joint stipulation that this matter be considered a petition for writ of prohibition. See NRS 34.320 to 34.350.

Affirmed and the matter is remanded to the Sixth Judicial District Court for further próceedings on the adoption petition.