IN RE: J.A. (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the denial of petitioner J.A.’s motion for an order to show cause. J.A. seeks a writ directing the juvenile court to hold real party in interest Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) in contempt for failing to provide services to a juvenile under NRS 433B.130 and NRS 433B.320. J.A. filed a motion urging this court to grant the petition based on the failure of DCFS to file an answer to the petition. See NRAP 31(d) (providing the failure to file an answer “may be treated as a confession of error”). DCFS opposes the motion, arguing that the case is moot. See NCAA v. Univ. of Nev., 97 Nev. 56, 57, 624 P.2d 10, 10 (1981) (“[T]he duty of every judicial tribunal is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it.”). Because J.A. was placed in a treatment facility after the instant petition was filed, we agree and conclude the case is moot. See Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720, 100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (recognizing that “cases presenting live controversies at the time of their inception may become moot by the occurrence of subsequent events”); see also Off. of the Att'y Gen. v. Justice Ct., 133 Nev. 78, 80, 392 P.3d 170, 172 (2017) (“Because mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, the appellate court has complete discretion to determine whether to consider it.” (citation modified)).

Furthermore, given recent amendments clarifying DCFS's obligation under the relevant statutes, see A.B. 467, 83rd Leg. (Nev. 2025); 2025 Nev. Stat., ch. 467 § 20, we are not persuaded that the issue presented falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine, see Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 155, 158-59, 460 P.3d 976, 982 (2020) (“[T]his court may consider [a moot case] if it involves a matter of widespread importance that is capable of repetition, yet evading review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we deny J.A.’s motion and

ORDER, this petition DISMISSED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.