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

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging temporary emergency child custody orders entered in the Eighth Judicial District Court. The Court of Appeals set out the governing framework for mandamus relief: a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). The court emphasized the discretionary nature of writ relief, noting that the decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within its sole discretion and that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted, citing Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Applying that standard to the petition and supporting documents, the court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted and denied the petition. The order does not include further doctrinal analysis of the merits of the custody orders.

In plain language

This case involves a dispute over temporary emergency orders about child custody. One parent, Tiffanee Bruchu, asked the Nevada Court of Appeals to step in on an emergency basis and overturn those orders. She filed the request herself, without an attorney, using a tool called a writ of mandamus - a court order that directs a lower court or official to do something the law requires, or that corrects a decision made in an arbitrary or unreasonable way. The court explained that whether to even take up a request for this kind of extraordinary relief is entirely up to the court's own discretion, and that the person asking for it carries the burden of showing the relief is justified. After reviewing the petition and the documents filed in support of it, the court concluded that Bruchu had not shown that this extraordinary relief was warranted. The court therefore denied the petition. The opinion does not explain the underlying facts of the custody dispute or analyze the specifics of the emergency orders.