Supreme Court of Nevada denies father writ..BY: DAMITA N.

Link for opinion: http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.msbcollege.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/ 299 P.3d 378: 2013 Nev. LEXIS 32: 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 28 Title: Supreme Court of Nevada denies father writ of mandamus challenging issuance of a fictitious address. The father petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the Nevada Secretary of State to remove the mother from a fictitious address program. The father and mother have a child together, but after they separated, the mother obtained a temporary restraining order against the father. When this order expired, the court awarded them both joint legal and physical custody. Five months later the mother petitioned for and was granted a fictitious address, after she claimed being a victim of domestic assault and stalking. The father responded by seeking a writ of mandamus to remove the mother from the fictitious program because of his rights as a custodial parent of being allowed to know where his child is, even when in the mother’s physical custody, which then made the Secretary a party to the writ petition as a respondent, being charged with keeping the address a secret, with the mother becoming a real party in interest. In order for the mother to receive the fictitious address, she had to submit an application that showed specific evidence that she had been a victim of domestic assault and stalking to the Nevada Secretary of State, who then must approve the application and issue the fictitious address. The mother provided the temporary restraining order. The Secretary is then only allowed to release the address to a law enforcement agency or by lawful order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and then only to the person identified in the order. The courts found that the Nevada Secretary of State followed all proper procedures in issuing the fictitious address which then makes it where the father must provide proof that a writ of relief is warranted. However, in seeking disclosure of the address, the mother had to have proof the co-parent was the perpetrator of the domestic violence, which she did by providing a copy of the temporary restraining order, which is consider that acceptable proof. The courts denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because it would require making factual determinations and as an appellant court they could not do this, it would have to be done in a district court.