Cowart v. Dist. Ct. (Robinson)

Nevada Supreme Court

Cowart v. Dist. Ct. (Robinson)

DecidedOctober 15, 2015

Docket68954

StatusUnpublished

This text of Cowart v. Dist. Ct. (Robinson) (Cowart v. Dist. Ct. (Robinson)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cowart v. Dist. Ct. (Robinson), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

time. Although it appears that petitioner delayed in filing this petition and there is an upcoming hearing on the matter, we note that a written order memorializing the May 27, 2015, ruling was not entered until August 24, 2015. Currently, however, the district court is scheduled to address petitioner's motion to modify custody and assess whether the custody arrangement is in the child's best interest at the evidentiary hearing on November 6, 2015, which is less than one month away. The record indicates that the district court's orders for reunification were based on the reunification efforts over the past year and the recommendations from therapists of all minors involved that reunification occur. The district court has imposed conditions concerning supervision and appointed a guardian ad litem for the child. We trust that the guardian ad litem will participate in the proceedings below to ensure that the child's best interest is protected. Once the district court has the opportunity to fully address the custody issue and resolve petitioner's motion, petitioner may appeal if aggrieved. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); see also NRAP 3A(b)(7) (allowing an appeal from an order finally altering child custody); Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700-01, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983) (providing that an order denying a motion to amend a divorce decree is appealable if the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances). If, in the meantime, petitioner believes that real party in interest is noncompliant with conditions imposed by the district court relating to supervision, those matters involve factual issues that are more appropriately addressed to the district court.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Under these circumstances, we decline to intervene in this matter and we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that a petition for extraordinary writ relief is purely discretionary with this court). It is so ORDERED.

Saitta

Gibbons ,9:244„ J.

4 Pickering

cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge Rosenblum Law Offices Kirk T. Kennedy Fine Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

time. Although it appears that petitioner delayed in filing this petition and there is an upcoming hearing on the matter, we note that a written order memorializing the May 27, 2015, ruling was not entered until August 24, 2015. Currently, however, the district court is scheduled to address petitioner's motion to modify custody and assess whether the custody arrangement is in the child's best interest at the evidentiary hearing on November 6, 2015, which is less than one month away. The record indicates that the district court's orders for reunification were based on the reunification efforts over the past year and the recommendations from therapists of all minors involved that reunification occur. The district court has imposed conditions concerning supervision and appointed a guardian ad litem for the child. We trust that the guardian ad litem will participate in the proceedings below to ensure that the child's best interest is protected. Once the district court has the opportunity to fully address the custody issue and resolve petitioner's motion, petitioner may appeal if aggrieved. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); see also NRAP 3A(b)(7) (allowing an appeal from an order finally altering child custody); Burton v. Burton, 99 Nev. 698, 700-01, 669 P.2d 703, 705 (1983) (providing that an order denying a motion to amend a divorce decree is appealable if the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances). If, in the meantime, petitioner believes that real party in interest is noncompliant with conditions imposed by the district court relating to supervision, those matters involve factual issues that are more appropriately addressed to the district court.