no adequate legal remedy. See In re A.B., 128 Nev. „ 291 P.3d 122,
126 (2012) (recognizing that an extraordinary writ petition was an
appropriate vehicle to challenge an order that dismissed a petition
alleging abuse and neglect). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that
our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
We have considered the petition and the answer thereto, and
we conclude that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not
warranted. Although the abuse and neglect petition was not filed within
ten days after the protective custody hearing, the hearing master found
good cause for the delay. See NRS 432B.490(1)(b). 1 The master's findings
and recommendation were affirmed by the district court. Accordingly, we
deny the petition. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674,
677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (stating that the issuance of an
extraordinary writ is purely discretionary with this court).
It is so ORDERED. 2
Hardesty
PC0.4.0WOL.,
Parraguirre
, J.
Cherry
'We take judicial notice that NRS 432B.490 as substantively
amended on May 24, 2013. See A.B. 174, 77th Leg. (Nev. 2013).
2 In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's request for a
stay.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division
Special Public Defender
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
M=IKI
Weaver v. Dist. Ct. (State)
Combined Opinion