Court Opinion

ID: 9963598
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 20:13:46.572547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:53.469551
License: Public Domain

140 Nev., Advance Opinion

                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                 B.Y. AND A.F.,                                           No. 88027
                 Petitioners,
                 vs.
                 THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                 COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                NLED
                 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
                 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE                                     APR 25 202ii
                 STACY MICHELLE ROCHELEAU,                                 ELI        I-1 k BROWN
                                                                                     UP
                                                                         CLE
                 DISTRICT JUDGE,                                         BY
                                                                              C IEF DEPUTY CLERK
                 Respondents,
                   and
                 ATHENA BURDISS; LATOYA
                 BURDISS; SHERICE INEZ F.; IHAB Y.;
                 AND ALAN-MICHAEL F., SR.,
                 Real Parties in Interest.

                            Emergency    original   petition   for   a   writ      of mandamus
                challenging a district court ruling denying a petition for temporary
                guardianship over minor children.
                            Petition granted in part.

                Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc., and Marina Dalia-Hunt, Las
                Vegas,
                for Petitioners.

                Athena Burdiss, Las Vegas,
                Pro Se.

                LaToya Burdiss, Las Vegas,
                Pro Se.

                Sherice Inez F., Las Vegas,
                Pro Se.

SUPREME COURT
       OF
    NEVADA
                                                                              7,4 • 11.100
(0) [47A
                Ihab Y., San Diego, California,
                Pro Se.

                Alan-Michael F., Sr., Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
                Pro Se.

                BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, STIGLICH, PICKERING, and
                PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.

                                                  OPINION'

                PER CURIAM:
                            NRS 159A.053 allows the district court to appoint temporary
                guardians over minor children upon a showing of good cause. After a
                significant delay in hearing a general guardianship petition in this case,
                two of the proposed protected minors asked the court to impose a temporary
                guardianship pending a decision on the petition for general guardianship,
                but the district court denied the request without a hearing. The minors
                then sought emergency relief from this court. We conclude that the district
                court manifestly abused its discretion in failing to give the request for
                temporary guardianship proper consideration under NRS Chapter 159A
                and grant the petition in part.

                       'This matter was resolved on March 8, 2024, by an unpublished Order
                Granting in Part Petition for Writ of Mandamus. On March 22, petitioners
                filed a rnotion to reissue the order as an opinion. We grant the motion and
                enter this opinion in place of our prior order. NRAP 36(0. As the writ of
                mandamus issued on March 8 in accordance with the prior order and was
                returned by the district court on March 18, no new writ need issue with the
                filing of this opinion.
SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                     2
(U) 1947A
                                  FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                            On October 4, 2023, real parties in interest Athena Burdiss and
                LaToya Burdiss filed a pro se petition for general guardianship over their
                four grandchildren, explaining generally that a guardianship was sought
                because the children had been exposed to unsafe conditions while living
                with their mother, real party in interest Sherice F.        According to the
                guardianship petition, Sherice was currently living with a new partner with
                whom the children felt unsafe and had not obtained independent housing
                or daycare, and Sherice refused to renew voluntary guardianship papers.
                Attached to the guardianship petition was a June 2023 letter signed by
                Athena and Sherice stating that Sherice allowed the children to live with
                Athena from March 2023 until further notice, as well as notarized six-
                month voluntary guardianship forms for each of the children dated April
                19, 2023. The guardianship petition listed the children's parents' addresses
                as unknown. A citation to appear on January 18, 2024, was entered the
                same day, but one week before the hearing, the guardianship petition was
                denied without prejudice for failure to provide proof that the petition and
                citation were properly served or consents and waivers of service.2 The court
                allowed the Burdisses to request that a new citation to appear issue in the
                same case and to serve it along with the original petition. Five days later,

                       'It appears that the district court prematurely denied the petition for
                failure to timely provide proof of service because NRS 159A.034(6) allows
                such proof to be filed "[o]n or before the date set for the hearing." While
                that provision applies to "notices" of hearings, a citation by definition
                provides notice of a hearing, NRS 159A.0145; NRS 159A.047(1), and a copy
                of the petition must be served with a citation, NRS 159A.047(2). Although
                we cannot fault the district court for applying NRCP 5 and employing modes
                of efficiency in view of the statutes' obliqueness, we think the more specific
                statute, NRS 159A.034(6), must be read to apply here.
SUPREME COURT
         OF
      NEVADA
                                                      3
( 0) 1947A
                 the Burdisses caused to issue a new citation to appear, noticing a hearing
                 for the next available date, April 18, 2024. Sherice filed an objection to the
                 proposed guardianship the next day, disputing some of the allegations
                 therein, including that she did not have a place for the children to reside.
                             On January 24, the two oldest children, petitioners B.Y. and
                 A.F., acting through appointed counsel, filed an ex parte petition for
                 appointment of the Burdisses as temporary guardians.3 In the temporary
                 guardianship petition, petitioners explained that they were uncomfortable
                 with their mother's new partner given the domestic violence they had
                 historically witnessed with other partners, also noting the new partner's
                 criminal background; asserted risk of physical and emotional harm should
                 they return to their mother at this time; and pointed out that they had been
                 or were likely to be unenrolled from their school, such that a temporary
                 guardianship with their grandmothers, with whom they had resided since
                 March 2023, was necessary for their well-being. The petition pointed to
                 presumptions under NRS 159A.053(4) and NRS 159A.061(4), which arise
                 when a parent has not had care, custody, and control of their child for the
                 preceding six months. Petitioners indicated that the parents had been
                 notified by phone, and both Sherice and A.F.'s father objected to the
                 proposed temporary guardianship, while B.Y.'s father was in favor of it. The
                 petition was accompanied by a declaration from Athena.
                             Two days later, on January 26, the district court entered
                 minutes denying the petition for temporary guardianship, recognizing that
                 petitioners had resided with Athena for more than six months but
                 indicating that no emergency was demonstrated as a basis for a temporary

                       3Petitioners also sought appointment of an investigator, which was
                 granted.
 SUPREME COURT
           OF
        NEVADA
                                                       4
i'())   947A
                guardianship. The court also noted that Athena's declaration was not
                signed, which apparently resulted from a technical glitch and was corrected
                on January 26, after the minutes were entered. To date, this court has not
                been provided with any written order denying the petition for temporary
                guardianship.
                            B.Y. and A.F. subsequently filed this emergency petition for a
                writ of mandarnus seeking to compel the district court to grant the
                Burdisses temporary guardianship. In it, they assert that the district court
                erred in refusing to grant temporary guardianship, as it is presumptively in
                their best interests under NRS 159A.053(4), Sherice is presumptively
                unsuitable under NRS 159A.061(4), and an active emergency exists.
                Sherice and respondent District Judge Stacy Michelle Rocheleau have
                timely filed answers, as directed, and petitioners have filed a reply. Because
                no adequate legal remedy exists to challenge the denial of temporary
                guardianship, we consider the petition. NRS 34.170.
                                               DISCUSSION
                            As noted, temporary guardianships governed by NRS 159A.053
                may issue upon a finding of good cause, so long as the petitioner attempted
                to provide prefiling notice or was excused from so doing. NRS 159A.053(2).
                Here, petitioners provided notice in accordance with subsection (2)(a).
                While the statute does not otherwise define good cause, NRS 159A.053(4)
                provides that "[i]f no parent of the proposed protected minor has had the
                care, custody and control of the minor for the 6 months immediately
                preceding the petition, temporary guardianship of the person of the minor
                is presumed to be in the best interest of the minor." Similarly, NRS
                159A.061(4)(c) presumes a parent is unsuitable to care for their children if
                the children have been out of the parent's care, custody, and control for the

SUPREME COURT
           OF
       NEVADA
                                                      5
( 0}   947,\
                six months preceding the filing of a petition for guardianship.        Here,
                petitioners have been out of the care, custody, and control of their parents
                since March 2023, well over the six-month period after which the
                presumption applies.    Thus, good cause for the temporary guardianship
                rnust be presumed.
                             In her answer, Judge Rocheleau asserts that, since the NRS
                159A.053(4) presumption is rebuttable, logic dictates that it cannot apply to
                a temporary guardianship issued ex parte before a hearing is held because
                the parents must have a chance to rebut it. While nothing in the statute
                indicates that the presumption is not rebuttable, see NRS 47.240 (noting
                that   conclusive    presumptions    include   only   certain   enumerated
                presumptions and a "presumption which, by statute, is expressly made
                conclusive," and no others); Presumption, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed.
                2019) (noting that, generally, "[a] presumption shifts the burden of
                production or persuasion to the opposing party, who can then attempt to
                overcome the presumption"), we do not read the statute as limiting the
                presumption's application to extension decisions after a hearing. Rather,
                the presumption applies any time temporary guardianship is sought; the
                fact that it may not be rebutted until a hearing, at most ten days after an
                ex parte appointment, NRS 159A.053(8), does not render it inapplicable at
                the ex parte stage. See generally In re Aniberley D., 775 A.2d 1158, 1163
                (Me. 2001) (concluding that the risk of erroneous deprivation of parental
                rights due to appointment of an emergency guardian without notice to

                parents is lessened when the guardianship is limited in duration and the
                parent can obtain a hearing on the matter thereafter, at which the guardian
                bears the burden to show continuation of the guardianship is in the child's
                hest interest).

SUPREME COURT
          OF
      NEVADA
                                                     6
(0)   I947A
                               Judge Rocheleau also points to substantial concerns with the ex
                   parte nature of the request itself, ultimately concluding that no emergency
                   necessitating an ex parte temporary guardianship existed. For instance,
                   based on the original general guardianship petition, the answer explains
                   that the judge found Athena's credibility questionable; noted that she had
                   been allowing the children to spend time with their mother, including
                   overnights, despite the allegations; and pointed out that there did not
                   appear to be any current issues with domestic violence or housing. Based
                   on her review of the record, the judge determined that no emergency was
                   shown, especially as Athena had not sought temporary guardianship over
                   the two youngest children.
                               When temporary guardianship is requested ex parte, an
                   affidavit explaining the emergency requiring appointment before a hearing
                   must be provided. NRS 159A.053(3). While the district court appears to
                   have thoroughly reviewed the record and we generally do not disturb the
                   district court's fact-based and discretionary conclusions, here it appears
                   that, at least in part, the district court's conclusions incorporated a
                   misunderstanding as to who was seeking the temporary guardianship. As
                   it was B.Y. and A.F. who filed the petition, not the Burdisses, the failure to
                   seek temporary guardianship over all four children cannot form a basis for
                   the conclusion that no emergency existed. Moreover, petitioners have been
                   living with the Burdisses for several months with no valid guardianship in
                   place, fear to return to their mother and her new partner (a fear that might
                   not be completely unfounded, given their backgrounds), and allegedly are
                   not enrolled in school, all with the hearing on general guardianship months
                   out at the time the petition was filed. If no emergency warranted an
                   immediate ex parte guardianship, nothing prevented the district court from

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                         7
(0) 1947A    AZ.
                requiring petitioners to provide notice and holding an expedited hearing
                before ruling on the petition for temporary guardianship. An expedited
                hearing on the petition or, if an ex parte petition is granted without a

                hearing, a hearing on whether the temporary guardianship should be
                extended would also afford Sherice (and any other interested party) an
                opportunity to address the disputed allegations made in the petition for
                temporary guardianship.
                                                CONCLUSION
                            The district court manifestly abused its discretion in failing to
                give the petition for temporary guardianship proper consideration under
                NRS Chapter 159A, and we thus conclude that writ relief is warranted in
                part. See Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newrnan, 97 Nev. 601, 637
                P.2d 534 (1981). Accordingly, we grant the petition and direct the clerk of
                this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to
                reconsider the petition for temporary guardianship on an expedited basis in
                accordance with this opinion.

                                                         Alit_5G4-0                J.
                                                   Stiglich

                                                                                   J.

                                                   Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA

                                                     8
(0) I947A