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