emergency temporary pick-up order. Given the circumstances of this case, we find unpersuasive petitioner's arguments that the district court should have retained temporary jurisdiction under NRS 125A.335 to resolve the custody issues. Both parties concede that the Republic of Moldova, not Nevada, is the child's home state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. See NRS 125A.085 (defining "home state"); 125A.225 (treating foreign countries as "sister" states). The child's home state is the proper forum to litigate the issues of custody. See NRS 125A.305. The parties asserted that their temporary visas are set to expire in August 2015, and according to the answer filed by real party in interest, he and the child have already returned to the Republic of Moldova, and petitioner did not dispute that assertion in her reply. We conclude that petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991).

Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

c:f:If; to Saitta

Gibboris Pickering

cc: Hon. Sandra L. Pomrenze, District Judge, Family Court Division McFarling Law Group Willick Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A