Mchaney Vs. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.)

Nevada Supreme Court

Mchaney Vs. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.)

DecidedJune 19, 2020

Docket81271

StatusPublished

This text of Mchaney Vs. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.) (Mchaney Vs. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.)) 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

Mchaney Vs. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

TH:E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GENEALYNN MCHANEY, No. 81271. Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILE IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 9 2020 MARGARET E. PICKARD, MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DEPENDENCY

Respondents, and CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; AND A MINOR, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION .FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a June 5, 2020, hearing master recommendation denying petitioner's motion to maintain placement of the subject child in the underlying dependency proceedings. Real parties in interest have timely filed answers to the petition, as directed.' Having reviewed the petition, answers, and supporting documentation, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not

'As real party in interest's proposed appendix, provisionally received in this court on June 18, 2020, contains confidential information filed under seal in the district court, its motion for leave to file the appendix under seal is granted. SRCR 3(4)(a), (7); see NRS 432B.280. The clerk of this court shall file the appendix under seal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ASPIM 2,0- zits", warranted at this time. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 .P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith u. Eighth Ju,dicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Although petitioner appears to have raised valid concerns with the hearing master's interpretation of NRS 432B.550(6)(b), analysis of the child's best interest, and failure to hold an evidentiary hearing, petitioner has not yet obtained the supervising district judge's review of her objection to the hearing master's recommendation. See EDCR 1.46. Accordingly, we conclude that this petition is premature and ORDE.R the petition DENIED.

.efx4; J. Hardesty

J. Cadish

cc: Margaret E. Pickard, :Hearing Master Smith Legal Group Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile :Division Eighth 'District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (C:4 1947A 41:DaD

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

TH:E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GENEALYNN MCHANEY, No. 81271. Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILE IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 9 2020 MARGARET E. PICKARD, MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DEPENDENCY

Respondents, and CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; AND A MINOR, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION .FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a June 5, 2020, hearing master recommendation denying petitioner's motion to maintain placement of the subject child in the underlying dependency proceedings. Real parties in interest have timely filed answers to the petition, as directed.' Having reviewed the petition, answers, and supporting documentation, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not

'As real party in interest's proposed appendix, provisionally received in this court on June 18, 2020, contains confidential information filed under seal in the district court, its motion for leave to file the appendix under seal is granted. SRCR 3(4)(a), (7); see NRS 432B.280. The clerk of this court shall file the appendix under seal.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ASPIM 2,0- zits", warranted at this time. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 .P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith u. Eighth Ju,dicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Although petitioner appears to have raised valid concerns with the hearing master's interpretation of NRS 432B.550(6)(b), analysis of the child's best interest, and failure to hold an evidentiary hearing, petitioner has not yet obtained the supervising district judge's review of her objection to the hearing master's recommendation. See EDCR 1.46. Accordingly, we conclude that this petition is premature and ORDE.R the petition DENIED.

.efx4; J. Hardesty

J. Cadish

cc: Margaret E. Pickard, :Hearing Master Smith Legal Group Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc. Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile :Division Eighth 'District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (C:4 1947A 41:DaD

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mchaney Vs. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mchaney-vs-dist-ct-clark-cty-dept-of-family-servs-nev-2020.

Opinion

J. Cadish

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack