eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2022-11

P. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.) ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
GINGER P.,                                               No. 85002
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT                              FILE
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK;                           NOV 1 8 2022
AND THE HONORABLE CYNTHIA N.
GIULIANI, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY SERVICES; AND C. A., MINOR
CHILD,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition challenging a district court order denying a request for
placement of a minor child. Having considered the petition, the answers,
the reply, and the supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our
extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court,
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228,
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004) (observing
that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is
warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    107 Nev. 674
    , 677, 679,
    818 P.2d 849
    , 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an
extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining
whether to entertain a writ petition).
Nothing in the supporting documents indicates that the district
court's factual findings regarding the child's best interest, which is the main
consideration, •were clearly erroneous or arbitrary or capricious. Philip R.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
22,-- 3(forl
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    134 Nev. 223
    , 228-29,
    416 P.3d 242
    , 247-48
(2018) (explaining that in considering a placement decision in light of NRS
128.110's familial preference, the main consideration is the child's best
interest); see also Ellis v. Carucci,
    123 Nev. 145
    , 152,
    161 P.3d 239
    , 244
(2007) (providing that this court leaves witness credibility determinations
to the district court).   Additionally, the district court's consideration of
petitioner's motion to intervene and be recognized as a person of special
interest on the same date as the placement hearing does not warrant our
extraordinary relief given that petitioner would not have been permitted to
conduct discovery or serve subpoenas. NRS 432B.457 (permitting a person
of special interest to be notified of plans regarding the child and to testify
at placement hearings); see, e.g., NRCP 26 (permitting parties to conduct
discovery). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.1
, C.J.
arraguirre
Mei-ticc4-0           J.                                        , Sr.J.
Stiglich
cc:   Hon. Cynthia N. Giuliani, District Judge, Family Court Division
Rosenblum Allen Law Firm
Burger Meyer, LLP
Clark County District Attorney/Civil Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
1The   Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
decision in this matter under a general order of assignment.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1V47A