ORTEGA VS. DIST. CT. (ORTEGA) (CHILD CUSTODY)
Jul 1, 202692312-COA · Nevada (SCOTN/COA)
Petition granted in part and denied in part; the court directed the Clerk to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to vacate the bench warrant issued against Medina.Kristen Medina and Aaron Ortega were married, had one child, and divorced in August 2023. In December 2025, after a hearing, the district court entered a written order modifying Ortega's parenting time. That custody order is being challenged in a separate appeal (Docket No. 91803). While that appeal was pending, disputes arose over Medina apparently withholding the child from Ortega.
Following further hearings, the district court entered orders in January and February 2026 addressing the custody arrangement and exchanges. Ortega then asked the court to give him primary physical custody, saying Medina was continuing to withhold the child. The court set a hearing, appointed a guardian ad litem (a person appointed to represent the child's interests), and ordered the parents to appear in person for an exchange of the child, warning that failing to appear could lead to a bench warrant (a court order authorizing a person's arrest). When Medina failed to appear with the child on March 19, 2026 - even after the court called her and directed her to do so - the court issued a bench warrant for her arrest. The court also entered orders for the return of the child and a warrant directing law enforcement to take physical custody of the child and deliver her to Ortega.
Medina asked the appellate court for an extraordinary court order (a writ of mandamus or prohibition) to undo all of these orders. She argued the district court had no power to act because an appeal was already pending.
The appellate court rejected most of Medina's arguments. It concluded she had not shown that the court's intervention was warranted regarding the January, February, and March 2026 orders, or the orders transferring temporary custody to Ortega. But the court agreed with Medina on one point: the way the district court handled the contempt finding and the bench warrant. The court explained that the bench warrant did not follow the correct legal procedure - it did not formally find Medina guilty of contempt, did not set out any specific punishment such as a fine or jail term, and did not set a bail amount. Instead, it ordered her held without bail and allowed up to 72 hours to pass after her arrest before the court would even be notified. For these reasons, the appellate court concluded the district court had abused its discretion in the procedure it used, and it ordered the bench warrant vacated.
The court noted that proceedings related to ongoing contempt appeared to be set for August 2026 and that nothing in its order prevented the district court from addressing any ongoing contempt. It also noted the orders for return of the child and to take physical custody had expired by their own terms on May 6, 2026, and nothing prevented the district court from reentering them if still warranted.