Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This court may issue a writ of
prohibition to arrest the proceedings• of a district court exercising its
ct
judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the distri
,
court's jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). It is within this court's sole
107
discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered. Smith,
Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Petitioner bears the 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 petition and the documents attached in
y
support of the petition, we conclude that our intervention by extraordinar
107
writ relief is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Smith,
Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. In particular, petitioner asserts that the
district court did not have authority to find compelling reasons to
),
maintain reunification as the permanency goal under NRS 432B.553(2
which provides that petitioner shall include termination of parental rights
as the permanency goal when the child has resided in foster care for 14 of
the preceding 20 months unless, among other reasons, petitioner
determines that there are compelling reasons why termination would not
be in the child's best interest. The permanent placement plan in which
.
petitioner would make such a recommendation is subject to court review
lly
See NRS 432B.553(1)(a). And the district court is required to annua
in
review the permanent placement plan to determine whether it would be
the best interest of the child to initiate proceedings to terminate parental
rights. NRS 432B.590(1), (3)(b)(2)(I). Moreover, NRS 432B.590(3)(e)
specifically provides that "[t]he provisions of this subsection do not limit
the jurisdiction of the court to review any decisions of the agency with
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 194Th
the child."
legal custody of the child regarding the permanent placement of
arily or
Here, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the district court arbitr
reasons
capriciously abused its discretion in concluding that compelling
Pan, 120
existed to maintain the permanency goal of reunification here,
Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; NRAP 21(b)(1), and for this reason, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
J.
Pickering
;uirre
Saitta
cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Hanratty Law Group
Thomas D.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ACStIr9