The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:10 a.m., on Thursday, February 25, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Sharron Angle

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Speaker Joseph E. Dini, District 38

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

• BDR 3-944 - Prohibits uninsured motorist involved in accident from seeking noneconomic damages (A.B. 327).

Speaker Joseph E. Dini, Assembly District 38, testified for A.B. 158 see (Exhibit C). Ms. Pauly and others involved with adoptions had expressed their concerns to Assemblyman Dini. A.B. 158 contained five parts.

• First, it gave preference to the placement of a child for adoption with siblings.
• Second, it required the courts to use their best efforts to ensure the proceedings were conducted and completed in a more timely manner (within 6 months after a petition was filed).

• Third, it created a board to expedite proceedings for placement of children, and expanded the clarification of anyone who had a special interest in a child.

• Fourth, it established a special advocate, who could be included as a choice for the court to appoint, if a child needed protection.

• Fifth, it placed a limit of 6 months after termination of a parent’s rights to ensure procedures for NRS 128 were completed. A.B. 158 was written to help foster children, adoptive children, foster parents, and adoptive parents.

Susan Porter testified in favor of A.B. 158. She had been a foster parent since 1991. She read proposed amendments and additions to A.B. 158, see (Exhibit D). She had communicated with agencies in Yerington. It was important to learn from the mistakes of the past. Currently, foster children did not have legal representation in court hearings. The law needed to be written in the best interest of the children. The children needed to be number one priority. She was concerned with keeping siblings together and the need for children to have legal representation. She wanted to make the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) accountable. Children in foster care for years and years was a form of child abuse. Relative searches should be completed within a year or less, to get the children out of the system sooner.

Assemblywoman Buckley stated her concern about the slow movement of placement to a permanent home. In Clark County a pilot program was formed to have attorneys represent the foster children. Everyone had a voice in a foster child case except the child.

Chairman Anderson stated there would be another piece of legislation, A.B. 315 to bring Nevada closer to conforming to federal legislation.

Beverly Block testified for A.B. 158. She was a retired educator and currently a Court Appointed Special Advocate, (CASA) volunteer with two cases, one child in Genoa and one in Sparks. She had worked with children all her life having been a retired educator. She had received little or no cooperation from DCFS, "We’ll take care of it or it’s on my desk." Foster children needed to be placed in permanent homes. One of her foster children was 9 months old and had been in seven different foster homes. DCFS had not fulfilled its obligation. The CASA program needed to be throughout the state. All children needed to be loved; the foster children especially, needed to be loved.

Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Block who trained CASA. Ms. Block responded she was trained in Carson City. The CASA program gave her 40 hours of training in talking to parents, interviewing skills, getting medical records, getting school records, and working with foster parents.

Chairman Anderson thanked Ms. Block and shared the importance of the CASA program. He commended Ms. Block for her service to the community as a CASA volunteer. He asked Ms. Block if she knew how many CASA volunteers there were in the First Judicial District.

Ms. Block responded, "12." Each volunteer had at least one case and some had two cases. A case could be one or more children in one family. One of Ms. Block’s case children had greatly improved; she had come out of her shell and had blossomed as an adolescent.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Block since one of her cases resided in Sparks which was outside the First Judicial District, if she took cases outside of the district.

Ms. Block was a retired educator and stated, "I will take a case anywhere I can help a child."

Ranee Diehl testified for A.B. 158. In March of 1998 she received a phone call from DCFS that they had a little girl for she and her husband to adopt. The child was placed in their home in April 1998. She and her husband had waited 5 years before they made the decision to adopt because of the horror stories they had heard only to find out the stories were true. DCFS gave she and her husband a 24-hour notice before their court date. DCFS had no intention in allowing the Diehls to adopt. DCFS used the Diehls as a cheap resource, cheaper than foster care. They had bonded with the child who was placed in their care after 1 week. Ranee Diehl questioned why after 7 years the natural mother of the child had not relinquished her rights as a parent. She learned in court a Florida couple had been waiting 5 years to adopt the same child.

Mrs. Diehl said in 5 years the child had been placed in 13 foster care homes. A child should be evaluated in 1 year or less. The child was in the system for 7 years. She tried to get an attorney to fight DCFS, but no attorney would take their case. She felt DCFS acted above the law. Now was the time to make the law clear and eliminate loopholes in the law with checks and balances. After being misled by DCFS, she would not trust them.

Chairman Anderson apologized to Mrs. Diehl for not calling her husband to be with her as she testified, recalling deeply personal experiences with DCFS. Mr. Diehl was called and sat beside his wife.

Ray Diehl testified for A.B. 158. He had talked with many foster parents about the problems of poor communications with their social worker. Some foster parents had not seen their social worker in 2 years or longer. One child’s parents had parental rights terminated, but the child remained in foster care for 5 years because nobody from DCFS took the time to read the record. DCFS adopted a child to parents without telling the adopted parents the child had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, FAS. He stated there were hundreds of stories where DCFS had been lied to adoptive parents. Mr. Diehl was concerned about the behavior of DCFS because the children and the caregivers had been hurt. Most foster parents had been burned out after 2 years of dealing with DCFS. Changes need to be enacted now.

Mr. Nolan commented he had received several communications from foster parents. Mr. and Mrs. Diehl’s testimony confirmed what other foster parents had communicated to him. He asked Mr. Diehl if he had knowledge of any cases where foster children were removed from the foster home under the excuse the children were being abused in the foster home.

Mr. Diehl told of a case in Dayton where a 3-year old and a 6-month old were taken out of the foster home because the foster parents wanted to adopt the two children. Lawyers did not want to handle a case like that because DCFS was basically above the law.

Karen Thompson testified for A.B. 158. She was a grandmother who resided in Fallon. She read from a handout, (Exhibit E). She was concerned with the abuses by DCFS separating siblings. She felt DCFS abused children because DCFS allowed children to remain in the system much longer than needed. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Thompson if she had been a foster parent. Ms. Thompson responded no. She stated she had grandchildren in foster care separated from their siblings. She had communicated with many foster parents.

Chairman Anderson stated his wife was an elementary educator, and he was a secondary educator. Children were his life’s work. He asked if a child should be placed with a parent who was in prison. Ms. Thompson stated no. She was concerned with the fact her grandchildren were in separate foster care homes.

Chairman Anderson stated every child was different and it was difficult to have one standard for every child. He mentioned the Federal Government guidelines in 1997 were reflected in A. B. 315. Ms. Thompson agreed with Chairman Anderson. She had been lied to by the state agencies she had contacted. She stated, "The children are the losers."

Mr. Collins related a personal story. His aunt died in an auto accident and his grandmother could not get custody of his aunt’s children because the remaining parent opposed the grandmother. He asked Ms. Thompson if she had similar experiences. Ms. Thompson replied she was not trying get custody. Her concern was for her grandchildren. They had been placed in separate foster homes as opposed to the siblings being placed in one foster home as a family.

James Porter testified for A.B. 158. He lived in Yerington and had two foster siblings. He read a statement stating he was in favor of keeping siblings together when they were in foster care. He wanted the law to be amended to keep siblings together.

Don Porter testified for A.B. 158. He lived in Yerington and had been a foster parent. Employed as a water treatment operator in Reno/Sparks, he had to go through training and had to adhere to certain federal and state regulations and procedures to do his job correctly. People could have become sick or could have died if he had not done his job properly. He could be punished if he did not perform his job correctly. DCFS had decided to ignore their regulations. He favored a board with the power to force DCFS to follow their regulations.

Chris Bayer testified for A.B. 158, (Exhibit F). He stated the differences in DCFS in case management as opposed to DCFS in adoption and the role of DCFS in one office as opposed to another office. He stated there were complex issues that needed to be balanced.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Bayer if he would be willing to use only 5 minutes to testify.

Mr. Bayer stated DCFS had done a good job in Carson City with their resources, but they needed more help. The Carson City DCFS office had taken over the Fallon office which had serious problems in the past. There were problems in the adoptive phase in the juvenile court. In the decade of the seventies, lawyers were appointed to represent the children, but they did not spend any time with the children. There were 62,000 CASA volunteers nationwide representing 160,000 children. Oregon had a review board with a $1 million budget and reviewed 6,000 cases in 1998. The board operated under the judiciary branch. The reason there had been a federal law was because local agencies had not addressed the local issues.

Chairman Anderson stated CASA was basically a volunteer group.

Mr. Bayer, Director of CASA in Carson City, stated two thirds of the CASAs nationwide were volunteer agencies. Washoe and Clark Counties were funded from the court systems. CASA Carson City were volunteers. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Bayer if he knew how Washoe and Clark Counties funded their CASA programs. Mr. Bayer had no knowledge of the funding formula. Chairman Anderson stated he served on the taxation committee, and there were several possible formulas to fund CASA in each county.

Ms. Koivisto asked Mr. Bayer if he had information as to what the other states were doing.

Mr. Bayer stated there was a national CASA association with which Carson City as well as the other counties in Nevada were affiliated. He stated he would be available to testify before a subcommittee.

Ms. McClain asked about the review board language. Mr. Bayer stated the review board existed within the agency it reviewed. Lacking independent funding, it was the only way it could exist. He preferred the review board write a report to communicate the results of the board.

Peggy Pauly testified for A.B. 158, see (Exhibit G). She stated one of her foster children, Brianna, was 46 months old and had been in the foster care system for 32 months. Brianna was "terminated" in March 1998, her parents no longer had parental rights, and nothing had been done to place her in a permanent home. Another foster daughter was 3 years old and became available to adopt in December 1998. She had been in the system from the time she was a week old. Ms. Pauly was distressed with the lack of concern for the rights of the foster children and that they were rarely seen by their social worker. Termination cases could and often did take years. The natural mother of the 3 year old foster daughter had been an alcoholic. Mrs. Pauly expressed concern that termination of parents rights be 6 months and not 26 months which had been their foster daughter’s experience. She pleaded to give the legislation a review board so every child could have a safe, loving, and permanent home. Teach those children that love did not have to hurt and that adults could be trusted.

Jeff Pauly testified for A.B. 158. He had fathered two sons and had four grandchildren. He had been the chaplain for the Lyon County Jail. He learned that 85 percent of the male and female prisoners had been in foster homes at some point in their lifetime. The children were not the problem, the system was. Children who had gone from foster home to foster home did not have any idea of a "normal home life." He stated the need for a review board and CASA volunteers who were allowed to speak for the children. He had sought changes in the law to get the children out of the "revolving door." He wanted to know how many other children would have to suffer from being stuck in the system. As a child, he was raised by caring and loving parents. His parents made their children the number one priority in their lives. He had been saddened by the fact most foster children did not know loving parents.

Mr. Nolan asked if the Paulys knew the child had Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, (FAS), and was she ever tested. Mr. Pauly, responded yes. The Paulys got their FAS child because the mother had been drunk and dropped the week old baby three times on the bus. He stated if caring and loving parents got an FAS child soon enough, the child could overcome many problems and become closer to normal.

Chairman Anderson wanted to know the time frame between the time the bus driver reported the intoxicated mother and the daughter being placed in the Pauly’s home? Ms. Pauly responded they received their foster daughter only a few hours after the baby was dropped. The Paulys had to fight with DCFS to get their foster daughter tested for FAS and to get the surgery to correct her bowel problem.

Betty Butler testified for A.B. 158. She began Carson City CASA in 1986 and had done just about everything to get the volunteer organization "off the ground." CASA now had a paid director, and was incorporated. At one time there were 20 volunteers with 55 children, including six infants from the women’s prison. CASA was needed in Carson City, in Nevada, and in the cow counties. She heard that Elko was going to be starting a CASA volunteer program.

May Shelton, Director of Washoe County Social Services, testified for A.B. 158. She reviewed the five points in the legislation contained in her handout, (Exhibit H).

• First, an independent review of cases that remain unresolved after the permanency hearing has been held.

• Second, a diligent search for appropriate relatives to care for a child within the first year a child was in foster care.

• Third, the court provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to persons who had a special interest in the well being of a particular child.

• Fourth, the courts give preference, if practicable, to the placement of siblings together.

• Fifth, guardians ad litem be appointed for children involved in the court process.

She was anxious to work with all parties who wanted to improve the system and the law.

Assemblywoman Leslie asked if Ms. Shelton had any plans to establish a review board in Washoe County. Ms. Shelton responded, they had been discussing the formation of a review board involving a number of different disciplines. The board would review Washoe County cases before the case was sent to the state. A weekly review committee for foster care was started by Judge Hardcastle in Clark County.

Adrienne Cox, Assistant Director of Family and Youth Services for Clark County testified for A.B. 158. She supported May Shelton’s testimony. She had wanted to work with the proponents of A.B. 158 as well as the Department of Child and Family Services to improve the child welfare system in Nevada. She wanted A.B. 158 to be coordinated with other proposals. Ms. Cox would be willing to work with a subcommittee on A.B. 158 at a future date.

Misty Grimmer testified for A.B. 158. Her younger brother had been in foster care. She felt her brother had been in a "foster care prison" because of the lack of concern on the part of DCFS.

Kathleen Atkins testified regarding A.B. 158. She had been a mother living in Sparks who adopted a special needs child, Sara Elizabeth Atkins, November 1998. She stated those were not complex issues, but were serious issues. She was not intimidated by DCFS. When she had a problem with DCFS, she would fax 10 to 15 other people concerning the problem including Frankie Sue Del Papa, Judge McGee, and anyone else who would listen to her. She kept careful records which had been her method to get things done concerning DCFS. She believed there was a need for more social workers with fewer cases. She wanted to keep the CASA program and wanted the review boards to remain small and for the people serving on the board to be able to get together in order to review each case.

Chairman Anderson assigned A.B. 158 to a subcommittee. The same subcommittee would be assigned A.B. 315. Ms. Koivisto was named chairwoman with Ms. Buckley and Mr. Carpenter as members of the committee. These three members had served on a similar subcommittee last legislative session. Chairman Anderson did not hold the subcommittee to the 10 day rule but advised the subcommittee to complete their business in a timely manner. He closed the discussion on A.B. 158.

Chairman Anderson mentioned A.B. 120 and amendment 64. Amendment 64 concerned only criminal cases. The bill would be brought up February 26, 1999.

Chairman Anderson opened discussion on A.B. 155.

Paula Winne representing Assemblyman Dini testified for A.B. 155. Assemblyman Dini sponsored the bill. A.B. 155 would require a person to provide reasonable aid or assistance to others under certain circumstances, along with clarifying terms that pertained to statutes and provided penalties for individuals that did not comply.

Robert King testified for A.B. 155. He had been a friend of Assemblyman Dini. He was concerned with sections 8 to 20. He mentioned everyone needed to be aware of hazardous situations. The bill placed no great burden on any one person but requested everyone be more responsible citizens. There had been a history of private citizens helping one another. Health and public safety departments could not be aware of every negative situation; A.B. 155 had asked each citizen to become aware of hazards and public safety situations. Usually, the first person on the scene of an accident or hazardous situation was a private citizen. The legislation did not ask citizens to be vigilantes, but that citizens be aware of public safety and relationships between people.

Mr. King mentioned some citizens did not want to become involved because they did not know the victim or lacked concern for fellow human beings. Several years ago when Mr. King was Nevada State Emergency Management Director he went to a remote place where a private citizen had reported the dumping of toxic materials. A short time after arriving at the sight, Mr. King had a violent headache. His headache lasted into the next day. He was concerned with the problem being corrected. He mentioned almost everyone was a stranger. When they did not know someone, there was a feeling to be less responsible about their safety. Everyone had been and were dependent upon each other for safety. Protections were provided for the private citizen who reported a hazard or public safety concern while the bill provided a penalty for the person who failed to act. A.B. 155 established standards of personal responsibility.

Chairman Anderson questioned Mr. King about sections 8 to 20. He stated the bill was a far-reaching piece of legislation. Mr. King responded he had an interest in only sections 8 to 20.

Speaker Dini testified for A.B. 155. Mr. King had gone to Speaker Dini requesting the bill. Speaker Dini stated he believed in the bill. He responded a number of people had worked on A.B. 155.

Karen Winckler, Nevada Attorney for Criminal Justice, testified against A.B. 155. She had been a defense attorney in Las Vegas. Her problem was with section 15, it would be a criminal offense not to report a crime observed by a citizen. She stated the goals of the bill were good, but the bill would not make a bad citizen into a good citizen. The bill would make everyone a snitch on anyone who did something wrong. Las Vegas had millions of visitors a year. The bill would require each visitor to report a crime whether they knew about the bill or not. She was one of the defense attorneys for David Cash who witnessed the murder of a 7-year old girl in Clark County. David decided not to report the murder. That was not the American way and certainly not the Nevada way of doing things. She mentioned good people, who were the majority, had been and would continue to be good citizens. She warned the committee with the passing of A.B. 155, everyone would become a snitch.

David Schieck testified against A.B. 155. He was concerned with section 16. Section 16 mandated anyone who had knowledge of a crime was required to report that crime. If they failed to report, they would be subject to criminal penalties. Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) 49 had established the protection of the attorney-client privilege. The privileges in NRS 49 would not be protected in A.B. 155. Attorneys, doctors, accountants, the media, and psychologists would be required to disclose any crime those professionals had learned through privileged information from a client. A.B. 155 would negate the defendant’s right to effective counseling, the Fifth Amendment Right. Knowing human nature, he was concerned with the possibility a prosecutor would be obsessed with the ability to prosecute a witness who had a change of heart and came forward to testify.

Chairman Anderson referred A.B. 155 to a subcommittee for which he would be as chairman. Mr. Brower and Ms. McClain would be the remaining members of the subcommittee.

Chairman Anderson closed the discussion on A.B. 155 and opened discussion on A.B. 53.

Mr. Williams mentioned A.B. 53 was requested by Mr. Carpenter. The bill was heard on February 10, 1999. The bill would change the status of a juvenile who committed a violent crime on school property, a school bus, or at a school sponsored event. The juvenile would be treated as an adult in district court. The bill called for specific penalties. He stated Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Lang change the language of the amendment to the appropriate bill drafter language which was included in tab K in the blue handout, (Exhibit I). Ms. Lang explained the new wording in Exhibit I was underlined and the replaced language crossed out.

• "If a felony that is committed on the property of a public or private school when pupils or employees of the school are present or may be present or on a school bus while the bus is engaged in its official duties results in death or substantial bodily harm to the victim, and the person who committed the felony intended to create a great risk of death or substantial bodily harm to more than one person by means of a weapon, device or course of action that would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person, the felony may be deemed a category A felony and the person who committed the felony may be punished by imprisonment in the state prison:

(a) For life without the possibility of parole;

(b) For life with the possibility of parole, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served; or

(c) For a definite term of 50 years, with eligibility for parole beginning when a minimum of 20 years has been served.

• Section 4 subsection 2 does not create a separate offense but provides an alternative penalty for the primary offense, the imposition of which is contingent upon the finding of the prescribed fact.
• Section 5 (d) A felony that results in death or substantial bodily harm to the victim which is committed on the property of a public or private school, when pupils or employees of the school are present or may be present or on a school bus while the bus is engaged in its official duties – if the person who committed the felony intended to create a great risk of death or substantial bodily harm to more than one person by means of a weapon, device or course of action that would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person."

Assemblyman Carpenter stated he agreed with the wording in Exhibit I. He wanted sections three and four to remain in the bill.

Assemblywoman Buckley supported the bill to include sections 3 and 4.

Assemblywoman Koivisto stated she had met with fourth grade students in her district last year. The students were scared and wanted tough penalties "with the keys thrown away" for students who committed crimes on school property.

Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang if the committee would now have essentially the original bill with the inclusion of sections 3 and 4? Ms. Lang responded yes.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 53 TO INCLUDE SECTIONS THREE AND FOUR AS AMENDED.

ASSEMBLYMAN GUSTAVSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Anderson announced Mr. Carpenter would present the bill to the floor. He mentioned the Committee on Judiciary had scheduled committee hearings through the second week of March. Senate bills had been included in the scheduled committee hearings. He mentioned Assembly bills had taken priority over Senate bills.

Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:42 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Ken Beaton,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: