P. VS. DIST. CT. (CLARK CTY. DEP'T OF FAMILY SERVS.)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court addressed an original writ petition challenging a district court placement order. Writ relief is extraordinary and discretionary, and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). On the merits, the court applied the framework from Philip R. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 134 Nev. 223, 228-29, 416 P.3d 242, 247-48 (2018), under which a placement decision evaluated against NRS 128.110's familial preference is governed principally by the child's best interest. The court found nothing in the supporting documentation indicating that the district court's best-interest findings were clearly erroneous or arbitrary or capricious, and it deferred to the district court on witness credibility under Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 152, 161 P.3d 239, 244 (2007). As to the procedural objection - that the district court heard the motion to intervene and to recognize petitioner as a person of special interest on the same date as the placement hearing - the court found no basis for extraordinary relief. The court observed that the rights conferred by NRS 432B.457 on a person of special interest (notification of plans regarding the child and the right to testify at placement hearings) do not include the discovery tools available to parties under NRCP 26. The same-day consideration therefore did not deprive petitioner of procedural mechanisms she would otherwise have had. The petition was denied.

In plain language

This case involves a dispute over where a child should be placed. Ginger P. asked the family court to place a minor child, C.A., with her. The district court denied that request. Rather than pursue a normal appeal, Ginger P. went directly to the Nevada Supreme Court and asked it to issue what is called a writ of mandamus or prohibition - an extraordinary court order that tells a lower court either to do something it is required to do or to stop doing something it has no authority to do. These writs are not available as a matter of right; the Supreme Court decides whether to get involved. The Supreme Court declined to step in. The court explained that the person asking for a writ has to show that this kind of extraordinary intervention is warranted, and Ginger P. did not make that showing here. The court reviewed the record and concluded that the district court's factual findings about what was in the child's best interest - the central question in a placement decision - were not clearly wrong or arbitrary. Ginger P. also complained that the district court considered her motion to intervene and to be recognized as a "person of special interest" on the same day as the placement hearing. The Supreme Court was not persuaded that this timing justified extraordinary relief, observing that even if she had been recognized as a person of special interest, that status would not have entitled her to conduct discovery or issue subpoenas. A person of special interest is entitled to be notified about plans for the child and to testify at placement hearings, but not to the broader litigation tools available to full parties. The petition was denied, leaving the district court's placement decision in place.