IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 82363 

MEV 

SEP 1 7 2021 

EuzAurri 

CLE RUviL !..)0LIRT 

DEPUTY CLERX 

JEFFREY P., 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; 

AND THE HONORABLE DAVID S. 

GIBSON, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 

FAMILY SERVICES; LINDA S.; AND 

S.S.-P., 

Real Parties in Interest. 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition 

challenges a district court order removing petitioner Jeffrey P. from the 

minor child's birth certificate in a protective custody action.' The child was 

born to Jeffrey P. and real party in interest Linda S. during their marriage. 

During their divorce proceedings, Jeffrey learned the child was not his 

biological child. In the divorce decree, the parties stipulated that the child 

was not Jeffrey's biological child, that there are no children who are the 

issue of the marriage, and Linda may obtain a new birth certificate for the 

child. Linda never amended the child's birth certificate and Jeffrey 

'While Jeffrey sought a writ of prohibition in the alternative, a writ 

of mandamus is the more appropriate relief because the district court had 

jurisdiction to make a parentage determination. 

Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument 

is not warranted in this appeal. 

SUPREME COURT' 

Of 

NEVADA 

101 71- 7(933 
remained in the child's life in a parental role by providing financial support 

for the child and having summer visitation with the child after Jeffrey 

relocated out of the state. 

When real party in interest, Department of Family Services 

(DFS), removed the child from Linda's care the first time, the child was 

placed with Jeffrey until the child could be returned to Linda's care. When 

DFS removed the child a second time, it did not give Jeffrey notice of the 

protective custody action or its motion to amend the child's birth certificate 

in accordance with the divorce decree. The district court granted the motion 

to amend the child's birth certificate to remove Jeffrey's name as the child's 

father. When Jeffrey learned of that order, he immediately filed a motion 

to set it aside and sought to have the child placed with him. The district 

court denied the motion to set aside the order but placed the child with 

Jeffrey as fictive kin. 

Having considered the petition, answers, reply, and supporting 

documents, we conclude that writ relief is warranted because the district 

court should have held an evidentiary hearing before making a parentage 

determination when there was no current parentage information available 

and when the party who may oppose the parentage request was not 

provided notice of the action. See NRS 34.160 (providing that mandarnus 

relief is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires 

as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary 

or capricious exercise of discretion); Intl Garne Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial 

Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) (same); see also St. 

Mary v. Danion, 129 Nev. 647, 649, 309 P.3d 1027, 1029 (2013) (concluding 

that the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing in a 

disputed parentage matter); Mesi v. Mesi, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 89, 478 P.3d 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 
366, 369 (2020) (explaining that due process requires an interested party be 

given an opportunity to be heard). While the divorce decree recognized that 

Jeffrey was not the child's biological father and there were no children as 

issue of the marriage, it did not conclude Jeffrey was not the child's father. 

Further, because the divorce decree did not order the birth certificate 

amended as required by NRS 126.161(2), the district court's order directing 

the amendment of the birth certificate in the protective custody matter was 

a parentage determination, which could not occur without notice to Jeffrey 

and an evidentiary hearing if the parentage request was reasonably 

opposed. 

DFS, the party that filed the motion to amend the birth 

certificate, was aware of evidence that would indicate Jeffrey was the child's 

presumed or putative parent. See NRS 432B.470(2) (requiring notice of a 

protective custody action be sent to a parent or person responsible for the 

child's welfare). Jeffrey was still listed as the child's father on the birth 

certificate at the time of removal and the child was born during Jeffrey and 

Linda's marriage. See NRS 126.051(1)(a) (providing a man is presumed the 

father of a child born during the marriage). Additionally, since the divorce 

decree, Jeffrey had received the child into his home and held the child out 

as his own. See NRS 126.051(1)(d) (providing a man can be a child's 

putative parent by receiving the child into his home and openly holding the 

child out as his own). Thus, no amendment of the birth certificate could be 

ordered without first providing notice to Jeffrey. See J.D. Constr., Inc. v. 

IBEX Int? Grp., LLC, 126 Nev. 366, 376, 240 P.3d 1033, 1040 (2010) 

(explaining that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be 

heard). Accordingly, the order amending the birth certificate was a 

parentage determination made without notice to the presumed or putative 

3 
parent and without adequate evidence. Because the district court thus 

erred in granting the motion to amend the birth certificate and in denying 

petitioner's motion to set aside that order, we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the 

district court to vacate the order amending the birth certificate.2 

AI` , C•J. 

Hardesty 

,14/4(..0 , J. 

Stiglich 

Sr.J. 

Gib ons 

cc: Hon. David S. Gibson, Jr., District Judge 

The Grigsby Law Group 

Price Beckstrom, PLLC 

Keels Law Group 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COupr 

OF 

NEVADA 4