From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

K.A. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 13, 2014
No. 64758 (Nev. Feb. 13, 2014)

Opinion

No. 64758

02-13-2014

K. A., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FRANK P. SULLIVAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order placing petitioner in a residential treatment program. Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Clark County; Frank P. Sullivan, Judge.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered. Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition and the appendix attached to the petition, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Petitioner contends that because one of the two doctors who evaluated her recommended an outpatient treatment program, the court was prohibited from placing her in a treatment facility. NRS 432B.6077(3) requires placement of a child in a treatment environment that is less restrictive than a facility only if the district court has determined that the child could be treated effectively in the less restrictive environment. Here, the district court concluded that petitioner could not be effectively treated in a less restrictive environment because she had failed to participate in outpatient services in the past and because she is likely to harm herself. The district court determined that placement in a residential treatment program was in petitioner's best interest. Petitioner has failed to establish that the district court manifestly abused its discretion. See NRS 34.160; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

In light of this order, we deny petitioner's motion for a stay as moot.

__________

Pickering
__________
Parraguirre
__________
Saitta
cc: Hon. Frank P. Sullivan, District Judge, Family Court Division

Marquis Aurbach Coffing

Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

K.A. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Feb 13, 2014
No. 64758 (Nev. Feb. 13, 2014)
Case details for

K.A. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.

Case Details

Full title:K. A., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Feb 13, 2014

Citations

No. 64758 (Nev. Feb. 13, 2014)