Bouydston (Russell) v. State

towards the cost of care of his children. 1 Because the family court has exclusive jurisdiction to impose an obligation regarding the cost of care of appellant's children, we conclude that the district court erred by ordering restitution in the amount of $35,140.26, see Landreth, 127 Nev. at , 251 P.3d at 170 (family courts have the same constitutional power and authority as district courts); see Rohlfing v. Second Judicial Dist. Court In & For Cnty. of Washoe, 106 Nev. 902, 906, 803 P.2d 659, 662 (1990) (district courts lack jurisdiction to review or modify actions of other district courts), and we ORDER the judgment of conviction REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

Gibbons

,J. Douglas Saitta

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Washoe County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

'Although the order appears to have been in effect only while the children were physically in Social Services' care and does not order repayment of all expenses incurred by Social Services, because the court issued an order of support there is no limitation on the time in which an action may be commenced to seek reimbursement of money paid as public assistance for the children, NRS 125B.050(3), and the district attorney can move to establish, adjust, or enforce an obligation in the family court, NRS 125B.150(1).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A