BLACKWOOD VS. DIST. CT. (BLACKWOOD) (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the established mandamus framework. A writ of mandamus is available to compel a legally required act or to control a manifest abuse of discretion, Halverson v. Miller, 124 Nev. 484, 487, 186 P.3d 893, 896 (2008); see NRS 34.160, and issuance lies within the court's sound discretion, D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Mandamus is unavailable where the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841; see NRS 34.170. The court concluded that petitioner had an adequate legal remedy: an emergency motion in the pending appeal under NRAP 27(e). The court further observed that petitioner had already filed a non-emergency motion for remand in Docket No. 90713. The court declined to direct temporary placement of the children, deferring to the district court to resolve such requests in the first instance, and noted that under Mack-Manley v. Manley, 122 Nev. 849, 856, 138 P.3d 525, 530 (2006), the district court retains jurisdiction to issue an emergency order even after an appeal is filed. The court also criticized counsel's failure to cite the multi-volume appendix in support of factual assertions, stating that "in any future petitions, counsel should take care to support factual assertions with citations to the appendix."

In plain language

Mark Blackwood asked the Nevada Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus - a court order forcing a lower court to take an action it is legally required to take - directing the district court to rule promptly on emergency motions about his children's custody. He argued that because his ex-spouse, Melanie Blackwood, had filed a separate appeal, the family-court case had stalled, putting the children at risk. The Supreme Court declined to step in. It explained that this kind of extraordinary order is available only when a person has no other adequate way to get relief. Here, the court pointed out that Mark already had an alternative path: he could file an emergency motion directly in the pending appeal under the appellate rules, and he had in fact already filed a non-emergency motion for remand in that appeal. The court also reminded the parties that even when an appeal is pending, the district court keeps the power to issue emergency orders if needed - so the family court is not actually frozen on urgent child-safety questions. To the extent Mark also asked the Supreme Court itself to temporarily place the children with him, the court declined, saying that kind of decision should be made by the district court first. Finally, the court flagged a procedural problem: although Mark sought immediate review, his filing did not include citations to the multi-volume appendix to back up his factual claims, which slowed the court's review. The court advised counsel to provide such citations in any future emergency petitions.