court vacated the appointment of a permanent guardian pursuant to the
parties' stipulation. 1
A writ of mandamus is available to correct a manifest abuse of
discretion or "an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Int'l Game
Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556,
558 (2008); see also Lund v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 358,
363, 255 P.3d 280, 284 (2011). A writ of prohibition is available to prevent
a district court from acting beyond its jurisdiction. Sonia F. v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev. 495, 498, 215 P.3d 705, 707 (2009).
"An arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretiori is one
founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason, or contrary to
the evidence or established rules of law." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 18, 321 P.3d 882, 884 (2014) (internal
quotations omitted). "A manifest abuse of discretion is 'a clearly erroneous
interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of a law or
rule." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv.
Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (quoting Steward v. McDonald, 958
S.W.2d 297, 300 (Ark. 1997)).
"In Nevada, the juvenile court has exclusive jurisdiction in
proceedings concerning a child who is or may be a child in need of
protection." In re Parental Rights as to A.G., 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 13, 295
P.3d 589, 593 (2013); see NRS 432B.410(1). When a motion to modify or
revoke an order granting temporary custody of a child is made, "Mlle
'Therefore, we will not address Misti's assignments of error relating
to the appointment of a permanent guardian because these issues are now
moot. See Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 125 Nev.
849, 858, 221 P.3d 1240, 1246-47 (2009).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
[district] court shall hold a hearing on the motion and may dismiss the
motion or revoke or modify any order as it determines is in the best
interest of the child." NRS 432B.570(2).
Since the present district court was sitting as a juvenile court
and was presiding over proceedings relating to the protection of a child, it
had jurisdiction to resolve Misti's motion. See NRS 432B.410(1); In re
Parental Rights as to AG., 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 13, 295 P.3d at 593.
Because the district court acted within its discretion, we find that a writ of
prohibition is unwarranted at this time. See Sonia F., 125 Nev. at 498,
215 P.3d at 707.
Before the hearing and the entry of the order denying Misti's
motion, the district court received multiple reports from DFS and T.M.'s
guardian ad litem about T.M.'s welfare and Misti's fitness to be T.M.'s
guardian. The DFS report immediately preceding the order denying
Misti's motion concluded that continuing the temporary custody would
serve T.M.'s best interests, and it presented facts to establish this
conclusion. Because the evidence supports its order, the district court did
not abuse its discretion.
Furthermore, Misti identifies nothing in the record to suggest
that the district court's order was (1) based on prejudice or preference, (2)
made in disregard• of the law, or (3) based on a clearly erroneous
interpretation of the law. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
(Zogheib), 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 18, 321 P.3d at 884; State v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d at 780. As a
result, she fails to demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused
its discretion or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner when denying
her motion. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev.,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A <400
Adv. Op. 18, 321 P.3d at 884; State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
(Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d at 780. Thus, a writ of
mandamus is unwarranted at this time. 2 See Lund, 127 Nev. at 363, 255
P.3d at 284; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Therefore,
we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
J.
J.
Gibbons
Piektt c't J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge
Hon. Jim C. Shirley, District Judge
Miller Law, Inc.
Attorney General/Carson City
Debi Nardi
Attorney General/Reno
Lander County District Attorney
Lander County Clerk
2We have considered the parties remaining arguments and conclude
that they are without merit.
SUPREME Gown
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A