MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
January 27, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:00 a.m., January 27, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr John C. Bonaventura
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Scott Schererabsent/excused
Mr. Ken L. Haller absent/excused
Ms. Denice Miller absent/excused
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Marla McDade, Research Analyst
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
Following the roll call, the hearing of A.B. 45 was opened.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO 45: Revises provision concerning extent of knowledge natural parents may obtain concerning prospective adoptive parents.
Mr. John Sarb, Administrator, Human Resources Department, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) addressed the committee and stated A.B. 45 was designed to provide the last link in the adoption process. A.B. 45 would permit open adoptions in Nevada. It would extend the range of identifying information between birth parents and adoptive parents, provided both parties consented. Mr. Sarb pointed out the word "limited" in A.B. 45, page 1, Section 1, Subsection (c). Mr. Sarb stated seventy-five percent of adoptions executed in the state of Nevada were specific adoptions where the birth mother identified the adoptive parents. At present, if a child came to the agency and the birth mother relinquished the child or parental rights were terminated, the DCFS could not reveal information, although both the birth parent and the adoptive parents consented. He noted open adoptions were useful with older children who have strong ties to their birth parents and would like to retain knowledge of their birth parents. With the consent of the birth parents and the adoptive parents, A.B. 45 would allow DCFS to exchange the information, Mr. Sarb testified.
Mr. Sader noted the provision relating to consent by both parents was contained in A.B. 54. Mr. Sarb confirmed A.B. 54 refered to the release of information several years later when parties wanted to know who the natural parents were or where the adoptive child had gone.
Ms. Tammy Tovey, Deputy Attorney General, representing the Division of Child and Family Services, stated the concern she had in A.B. 45, page 1, Section 1, Subsection (c). The bill allowed information to flow from the natural parents as to knowledge of the prospective adoptive parents. Ms. Tovey felt the information should travel both ways. A.B. 45 needed to be amended to allow both parties to have knowledge of one another. Subsection (c) should be amended to read: "Adopt regulations establishing the procedure to be used in placing children for adoptions, including adoptions in which the natural parent or parents, and the prospective adoptive parent or parents, have knowledge of each other."
Mr. Regan addressed Ms. Tovey's testimony and asked if A.B. 45, Section 1, Subsection (c) should read "the prospective parent and parents" to be consistent with the former statement. Mr. Sader confirmed the amendment.
Ms. Nancy B. Peterson, LCSW, testified in favor of A.B. 45, Exhibit C. Ms. Peterson stated she has two adopted children. She is a licensed clinical social worker and an assistant professor at the University of Nevada Reno School of Social Work. Ms. Peterson stated she is also a member of a group of adoptive families called the Adoptive Family Network (AFN). Ms. Peterson emphasized her personal support, and the support of the AFN, of A.B. 45, which would allow open adoptions within the agency context in Nevada. Speaking on behalf of the AFN, Ms. Peterson stated open adoptions had been rewarding experiences. Using her own two children as examples, Ms. Peterson stated her children would know where they came from. The children would know why they were placed for adoption, and why the Petersons were chosen by their birth parents to raise them. They would not have to experience a search issue for their biological parents as young adults.
No further testimony or comments were made. The hearing on A.B. 45 was closed.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 54 Requires written consent for release of certain information contained in state register for adoptions.
Mr. John Sarb, Administrator for the Division of Child and Family Services, testified in favor of A.B. 54 and stated the bill sought to clarify legislative intent from the previous session. It required written consent of the natural parent to release registry information.
Mr. Regan asked if it was possible for the natural parent, in the event the birth parent did not want to be identified, to put in a statement to the effect no information would be released. Ms. Tovey noted in that instance, the birth parent would not register.
No further testimony or comments came before the committee. Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 54.
Chairman Sader stated a suggestion had arisen from the committee to amended A.B.45, page 1, Section 1, Subsection (c), line 9, after the word "parents" to add the language "and prospective adoptive parent or parents."
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B. 45.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
***************
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 54.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 77 Prohibits loitering and narrows definition of vagrancy.
Mr. Ben Graham, Clark County District Attorney's Office, represented the Nevada District Attorney's Association in favor of A.B. 77. Mr. Graham stated during the 1991 Nevada Legislative Session, a federal court ruling found portions of the Nevada Revised Statutes governing vagrancy and loitering unconstitutional. A.B. 77 was proposed in an effort to adjust the sections of the law which were found to be unconstitutional. From the prosecution's standpoint, the concern was to make certain the constitutional safeguards of the public were protected, but current language in A.B. 77 might not meet constitutional challenges. Mr. Graham requested the committee delay action so concerned parties could fashion the language of the bill to repeal those portions that had been found to be unconstitutional. Mr. Graham stated the need to repeal other provisions which would allow the county, the incorporated city, and the unincorporated municipalities to enact their own statutes in the event of a successful constitutional challenge. Mr. Graham stated his office intended to work on the language of A.B. 77 and submit a revision before the committee within the next two weeks.
Mr. David F. Sarnowski, Deputy Attorney General, noted a declaration of unconstitutionality of A.B. 77 had been made by the Federal District Court in a civil rights action. Once the court rulings had been entered, A.B. 77 was modeled after an ordinance found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, although it was not without pitfalls as Mr. Graham had inferred. Mr. Sarnowski felt the proposal by the City Attorney's Offices and the Clark County District Attorney's Office was eminently reasonable. It was Mr. Sarnowski's opinion the issues raised would best be served on a local level. Mr. Sarnowski said he would outline the necessary language needed which would allow the affected entities some latitude while at the same time, would protect the constitutional rights of persons who might be subject to prosecution under the state prowling statute.
Mr. Anderson presented concern over the fact Nevada was a twenty-four hour state in which many working people traveled to and from their place of employment at all hours of the night. He asked if this situation would be addressed within A.B. 77. Mr. Graham stated he did not anticipate problems in this area as workers generally did not loiter on the way to their place of employment.
Mr. Regan queried at to whether or not the intent was to change the language in A.B. 77 from a loitering and vagrancy bill to that of a prowling bill. Mr. Graham confirmed this and added that the vagrancy and loitering term in law enforcement was obsolete.
Mr. Petrak asked how issues contained in A.B. 77 would tie into the provisions in the stalking law in regard to the offender. Mr. Graham understood the stalking legislation addressed the fact that the stalker had a target, whereas in the prowling statute, location was addressed.
Mr. Sader requested an amendment to A.B. 77. He asked that the appropriate changes be drafted through Mr. Graham and Mr. Sarnowski and be submitted directly to Chairman Sader when completed. The amended bill would be presented at the next workshop.
No further discussion ensued on A.B. 77. the hearing was closed.
Mr. Sader announced no meeting would be held on Monday, February 1, 1993.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JESSIE A. CAPLE
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
January 27, 1993
Page: 1