The statute states that the district court may hold a hearing on the question of requiring reimbursement by a person who by law is liable to maintain, care for, or support the juvenile. The statute also provides that the County may bring a separate action for reimbursement against such person. The parties have adopted differing positions regarding how much of the actual detention expenses SRS is legally obligated to pay. The viability of both positions leads to the conclusion that the County's right to recover the full amount of the expenses is in substantial dispute. Mandamus is not an appropriate means to enforce a right which is in substantial dispute.
Mandamus lies only to enforce a right in a clear-cut case.
Unless a defendant's legal duty is clear, the court should not issue a writ of mandamus. Huser v. Duck Creek Watershed Dist. Because the County's right to recover the full amount of E.R.'s detention expenses is in substantial dispute, mandamus is not an appropriate means to resolve the issue. Huser v. Duck Creek Watershed Dist. Next, SRS contends that mandamus is not appropriate because an adequate remedy at law exists.