they are clearly erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence).

Appellant's argument that the children's prior residency with her is sufficient ignores the statute's condition that the residency be current— the 30-day period is not at issue here. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that appellant did not meet the NRS 127.110(1) requirements. Id. AppellantS next argues that the district court failed to consider the familial preference in placing a child in an adoption. Appellant raises this issue for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, this issue is deemed to have been waived, and we will not consider it. Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981).

Appellant lastly alleges several procedural deficiencies relating to a prior motion to adopt the children. That motion was filed in a different case, and appellant has not identified any authority permitting this court to review alleged procedural deficiencies relating to the denial of her motion in a prior action. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.M 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

' J.

gekuil, ,J.

Gibbons Pickering cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Cuthbert E.A. Mack Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A