Hernandez v. Dist. Ct. (State)

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 parties' arguments and the documentation before this court, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is not warranted. See Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Petitioner has an adequate legal remedy by which to challenge the drug-testing portion of her case plan in the form of a motion to revoke or modify the case plan under NRS 432B.570(1). See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. NRS 432B.570(2) mandates that the district court hold a hearing on such a motion. Although petitioner orally objected to the drug-testing portion of her case plan below, the district court did not enter any written factual findings on the issue, and we cannot determine, based on the limited record before us, whether the drug-testing portion of the case plan was a manifest abuse of discretion or in excess of the district court's authority. See generally In re Sergio C., 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 51, 53 (Ct. App. 1999) (discussing whether there is sufficient evidence to allow a district court to require a parent to undergo drug testing as part of a case plan to reunify with his or her children). Thus, petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted at this time. Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. Hardesty , J. Douglas Cherry SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 4igt(3) 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 »01WItr