From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ciausova v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jul 6, 2015
No. 68287 (Nev. Jul. 6, 2015)

Opinion

No. 68287

07-06-2015

ECATERINA CIAUSOVA, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE SANDRA L. POMRENZE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and ANDREI CIAUSOV, Real Party in Interest.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging an order that declined to take further jurisdiction over child custody, directs the parties to litigate the child custody issues in the Republic of Moldova, and closes the case. Having reviewed the petition and appendix, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court exceeded its jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002).

The district court properly exercised temporary, emergency jurisdiction to address a credible risk of abduction. See NRS 125D.150-210. Petitioner had the opportunity to file a written response and present her arguments to the district court at the hearing. NRS 125D.200(2). Thereafter, the district court declined to retain jurisdiction beyond the emergency temporary pick-up order. Given the circumstances of this case, we find unpersuasive petitioner's arguments that the district court should have retained temporary jurisdiction under NRS 125A.335 to resolve the custody issues. Both parties concede that the Republic of Moldova, not Nevada, is the child's home state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. See NRS 125A.085 (defining "home state"); 125A.225 (treating foreign countries as "sister" states). The child's home state is the proper forum to litigate the issues of custody. See NRS 125A.305. The parties asserted that their temporary visas are set to expire in August 2015, and according to the answer filed by real party in interest, he and the child have already returned to the Republic of Moldova, and petitioner did not dispute that assertion in her reply. We conclude that petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

/s/_________, J.

Saitta
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Sandra L. Pomrenze, District Judge, Family Court Division

McFarling Law Group

Willick Law Group

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Ciausova v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jul 6, 2015
No. 68287 (Nev. Jul. 6, 2015)
Case details for

Ciausova v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State

Case Details

Full title:ECATERINA CIAUSOVA, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Jul 6, 2015

Citations

No. 68287 (Nev. Jul. 6, 2015)