Opinion
No. 56005.
05-18-2010
Kristy HOLLINGSWORTH–OLSON, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of Nevada, In and for The COUNTY OF CLARK, and The Honorable Cynthia Guiliani, District Judge, Respondents, Jason Allen Olson, Real Party in Interest.
Wright Law Offices Carol A. Menninger
Wright Law Offices
Carol A. Menninger
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order that determined that Nevada has home-state jurisdiction to make child custody determinations and set, among other things, a temporary visitation schedule.
Having considered the petition and its attachments, we are not persuaded that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted at this time, NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991), because writ relief is not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, such as an appeal challenging the district court's jurisdiction. NRS 34.170; 34.330; Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 88 P.3d 840 (2004). Further, while the visitation schedule is somewhat troubling, petitioner failed to demonstrate that our intervention is warranted at this time, as it appears that there are only two weeks left in the temporary visitation schedule and a final visitation schedule will be established following the May 28 trial date, which may be appealed by the aggrieved party. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Ginsburg, 110 Nev. 440, 874 P.2d 729 (1994). Accordingly, writ relief is not appropriate, and we ORDER the petition DENIED.
We note that any party that is aggrieved may raise these issues in any appeal from the district court's judgment.
In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's request for a stay of the underlying proceedings.