IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO: G.F. (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied the standard framework governing extraordinary writ 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, citing Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. The decision whether to entertain a writ petition lies within the court's sole discretion, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted, citing Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Applying that framework to a petition challenging an order denying a motion to disqualify, the court stated: "Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted." The court accordingly ordered the petition denied without further analysis of the underlying disqualification motion.

In plain language

This is a short procedural order, not a full opinion deciding the merits of a family-law dispute. In an ongoing case about parental rights concerning a child identified as G.F., someone asked the district court to disqualify — that is, to remove — a participant in the case (the order does not specify whom the motion sought to disqualify). The district court said no. The losing party then went directly to the Nevada Court of Appeals and asked for extraordinary relief: either a writ of mandamus — a court order compelling a lower court to perform a legally required duty or correcting an arbitrary abuse of discretion — or a writ of prohibition — an order stopping a lower court from acting beyond its jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals explained that it has complete discretion over whether to even consider such a petition, and that the person asking for this kind of extraordinary relief bears the burden of showing it is warranted. After reviewing the petition and supporting documents, the court concluded the petitioner had not made that showing and denied the petition. The court did not explain its reasoning further, and the underlying parental-rights case presumably continues in the district court (the order does not address the status of the underlying proceedings).