IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PELE LA' CRUZ WATKINS, No. 70499
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; THE HONORABLE ROBERT JUL 1 3 2016
TEUTON, DISTRICT JUDGE; THE
HONORABLE THOMAS; THE
HEARING MASTER NORHEIM; AND
HEARING MASTER KURTZ,
Respondents,
and
CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
FAMILY SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition challenging the district court's jurisdiction in a proceeding
under MRS Chapter 432B. 1
Having considered the petition and the exhibits to the
petition, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our
intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004)
1-Based on our review of the petition and the supporting documents,
we have determined that Clark County Department of Family Services
should be listed as the real party in interest in this matter. We direct the
clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court's docket to conform to
the caption on this order.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
(explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that
extraordinary writ relief is warranted). The exhibits to the petition do not
demonstrate that petitioner resided with the minor child in the state of
Pennsylvania prior to the filing of the abuse and neglect petition on May 7,
2014. Thus, petitioner has not met his burden of showing that
Pennsylvania was the home state of the child at that time, and that the
Nevada district court lacked jurisdiction to order that the child be placed
in protective custody. See NRS 125A.085 (defining home state).
Additionally, regardless of whether the child's mother had conceded
custody to petitioner, the State of Nevada could still place the child in
protective custody if the child was in need of protection. See NRS
432B.390 (providing that a child may be placed in protective custody
without the consent of the person responsible for the child's welfare).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED. 2
Cherry
Douglas
4-94 Gibbons
cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division
Pele La' Cruz Watkins
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 To the extent petitioner's additional arguments are not addressed
in this order, we conclude they do not warrant writ relief.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A