MINUTES OF THE

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

Seventieth Session

April 22, 1999

The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:00 a.m., on Thursday, April 22, 1999.  Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 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

Ms.  Sharron Angle

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

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Bernice Matthews, Senate District 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Donald O. Williams, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Novella Watson-Lee, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Captain Jim Nadeau, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

Paula Berkley, Paula Berkley and Associates, Public Relations & Lobbying and Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence

May Shelton, Director, Washoe County Social Services

Myla Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources

Leland Sullivan, Chief of Child Support Enforcement Protection, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources

John Morrow, Washoe County Public Defender

The Honorable Janet J. Berry, District Judge, Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County

Patty Wagner, Program Officer, Division of Wildlife, Administrative Services, Department of Conversation and Natural Resources

Nancy Angres, Deputy Attorney General, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources

Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order and proceeded with roll call.  There was a quorum present.

Chairman Anderson noted for the record that in addition to the full committee, Ms. Emma Fulkerson would be sitting with the committee having accompanied her mother, Assemblywoman Leslie.

Senate Bill 412: Provides for protective custody of children upon death of parent under certain circumstances. (BDR 38-831)

Senator Bernice Matthews representing Senate District 1, Washoe County, said S.B. 412 was a simple bill.   She asked Judge Berry to provide a brief overview.

Judge Janet Berry, Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, and co-chairman of the Washoe County Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team testified.  The team was multi-disciplinary and patterned after child-death review teams.  The team performed “autopsies” of domestic violence murders in an attempt to learn how the community and a criminal justice society could prevent domestic violence, homicides, and intergenerational violence. By using all their expertise and information related to the murder, they shared information and identified ways the authorities could improve their response to those issues.  Judge Berry said the genesis of the legislation stemmed from the autopsy of a case with the following facts:  A female casino worker with three children was picked up from work by her husband.   Her co-workers saw the two arguing and a day later her bullet riddled body was found on the side of the road in the Sparks industrial area.  The news media reported on the unidentified woman’s body and the woman’s teenage daughter called the police.  She said her parents had been missing for 2 days and the women could be her missing mother.  The perpetrator had fled the jurisdiction, and the child identified her mother’s body.  Within 12 hours of the discovery of the body the three children were placed into the care and custody of the murderer’s parents, who lived in California. 

While autopsying the murder, Judge Berry questioned a member of the team from Child Protective Services on how it could be in the best interest of the three children to be placed with the murderer’s family.   During the autopsy they discovered the murderer was an extremely violent, dysfunctional person who had grown up in a violent home.  He was at least a second-generation domestic violence perpetrator, who had also been charged with sexual assault and abuse. 

Judge Berry testified in homes where domestic violence was occurring between partners, 50 to 70 percent of the children in those homes were being physically, verbally, and sexually abused.  She was dismayed to learn Child Protective Services was not involved in the placement of children who witnessed the murder of their parents, or who lost both of their parents in homicides in which one parent may be a suspect or incarcerated and the other dead. 

Washoe County Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team discovered that once law enforcement multi-tasking was on the scene they not only had to secure the crime scene, but also find a place for those children.  If a blood relative was found, they took custody of those children.  Neither Child Protective Services nor Family Court were involved. Judge Berry said one of the travesties their team saw was people stayed in a violent relationship in order to protect their children.

Judge Berry felt the voice of the deceased was not heard or avenged because an advocate was not permitted to say, “You know two days before Susan died she told us in a counseling group, or she told me as her sister that if anything ever happened to her she would want her children to go to her brother in Iowa.”  None of those issues were discussed.  The purpose of the legislation was to create a safety net.   To allow the best interest of the children to be considered by Child Protective Services who in turn would call upon the Family Court to give a forum to family members and advocates making sure the right thing was done for those children.  Children needed to be allowed to attend their deceased parents funeral, be provided grief counseling, and given every measure of resource society could provide to stop the next generation of violence.

Captain Jim Nadeau, legislative liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office and also representing the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, testified he was in support of the legislation. He felt the bill would provide specific direction across the state to law enforcement what exactly they could do in those situations.

Senator Matthews thanked Mr. Anderson for allowing her bill to be heard first and appreciated any support the committee could provide.

Chairman Anderson thanked Judge Berry and said she did an excellent job in Washoe County, and he could not say enough good things about the work of her court.

Paula Berkley, legislative liaison, the Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, presented a letter in support of S.B. 412 (Exhibit C).

Chairman Anderson said he would enter into the record letters of support from Nancy Hart of the Attorney General’s Office, (Exhibit D), and Joni Kaiser, executive director of the Community to Aid Abused Women (CAAW)      (Exhibit E).

May Shelton, Director of Washoe County Social Services, said her office had the privilege of working with Judge Berry on the language of the bill and were also in support.  Ms. Shelton felt southern Nevada had the most domestic violence fatalities or deaths in the state.  Washoe County Social Services would rather be involved up front with those cases than later, so they could protect the children.

Assemblywoman McClain questioned if S.B. 412 and A.B. 456 were complimentary and would work together or would there be a conflict.  For the record she was in support of both bills.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S. B. 412 and brought it back to committee.  There were questions for the legal staff and no action was taken.

Senate Bill 242: Revises provisions requiring inclusion of certain information in judgments of divorce and court orders for child support. (BDR 11-1392)

Myla Florence, administrator, Nevada Welfare Division, introduced Nancy Angres, chief deputy attorney general and Leland Sullivan the chief of the Child Support Enforcement Program.  S. B. 242 was requested by an attorney, Mr. Van Lydegraf who during testimony in the Senate stated he was concerned about social security numbers being made public record in a court order.  Ms. Florence said while the Welfare Division concurred with what appeared to be an effort to make social security numbers a confidential record, she wanted to ensure the necessary information was provided to the Welfare Division to allow the Child Support Enforcement Program to comply with the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,    specifically the provisions which required the Child Support Program to collect social security numbers and other demographics needed to locate noncustodial parents who owed child support.  Refer to Exhibit F for her remaining testimony.

Nancy Angres presented testimony on behalf of the Welfare Division and the Child Support Enforcement Program.  The amendments were minor, and clarified the requirements.  The court would still be required to maintain the social security numbers in a confidential manner, so as not to become part of the public record such as divorce decrees.

Chairman Anderson said the reason the bill was so large was because of the number of sections of the law with which the Welfare Division dealt.  Ms. Florence said that was correct.

Chairman Anderson asked if the intent was consistent with the way the other states seemed to be moving relative to the social security number question or was it just Nevada’s particular dislike or concern relative to how the social security number may be used.

Ms. Florence responded the requirement for the program to obtain social security numbers was a national issue, and there was a fair amount of angst in various states about the confidentiality of information being used for further purposes.  The bill would provide the social security number be kept confidential in the court record, and her agency was also required by law to keep that information confidential.

Chairman Anderson reiterated under federal statute the Welfare Division was mandated to keep information confidential.  Ms. Florence replied Mr. Anderson was correct and the proposed legislation included those sections of federal law.

Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Sullivan if he had anything he wanted to add to the discussion.  Mr. Sullivan responded he did not. 

Assemblyman Gustavson stated as he read the bill it appeared to require the social security number to be used in an area it had not previously been used.  He understood the need for confidentiality, but was it now required to be more so.

Myla Florence said previously it was interpreted the number be on the order itself which was a public record.  However, courts were providing the information to the Welfare Division keeping a record in the file and not on the order.  The bill clarified and required the practice. 

Mr. Gustavson restated the bill required it where it was not really required before.  Myla Florence said no, it was required before, however, in some jurisdictions it was entered on the court order, which was a public record, and that raised Mr. Van Lydegraf’s concern about the fact social security numbers could be public.  S. B. 242 provided social security numbers must be kept confidential and placed in the file not on the order.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S. B. 242.

Senate Bill 352: Makes various changes in certain procedures for enforcement of child support. (BDR 38-446)

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S. B. 352.

Myla Florence, administrator of the State Welfare Division, said S.B. 352 was requested by the Welfare Division to make changes to Nevada Revised Statues (NRS) chapter 425 and chapter 130 as they pertained to Nevada’s Child Support Enforcement Program.  The Welfare Division administered the program in conjunction with the county district attorneys.   She continued to read from the rest of her written testimony (Exhibit G).

Assemblyman Carpenter questioned whether there was a need in a custody battle or adoption to hold a hearing if other matters were pending that might do away with the need for a hearing.  Myla Florence said it would require the court to hear the child support matter while that action was occurring concurrently, it would not stay or stop the process from going forward.

Mr. Carpenter questioned the need for both processes when maybe one would suffice.  Myla Florence responded in a divorce action the child support order process needed to proceed. 

Nancy Angres, chief deputy attorney general, responded on behalf of the Welfare Division.  The bill was designed to prevent the parties from playing legal games and ensured the children were being supported.  In domestic cases they would say they did not have to pay child support, because their divorce was pending.  The divorce court would enter a temporary order for child support. The child support court would consider the order before entering any enforcement orders.  If none were entered the court or entity that looked at the child support issue would be able enter the order.

Mr. Carpenter had a problem with taking all discretion away from the court.  He did not think there was any doubt that custody and child support went together.

Ms. Florence said there were problems in interstate cases, where the custodial parent and child lived in Nevada, and the noncustodial parent resided in another state.  Disputed out-of-state divorce proceedings were delayed causing child support enforcement provisions to languish to the detriment of the child.

Mr. Carpenter responded that everything the Welfare Division had examined was negative regarding child support.  He thought there were cases where parents came forward and took care of their children.  He questioned section 1, subsection 1,  “Shall not stay a proceeding or refuse a hearing pursuant to NRS 425.382 to 425.3852, inclusive, because of any prior action or proceeding for divorce, separation, annulment, dissolution, habeas corpus, adoption or custody in this or any other state.”  He felt by forcing a judge to start another proceeding while in the middle of one hearing took away all discretion.

Ms. Angres referenced United State’s Code (USC) 42, section 666, subsection (c) 1, which stated “the state agency must have procedures which give the state agency the authority to take the following actions relating to establishing a paternity, establishment modification or enforcement support orders without the necessity of obtaining an order from any other judicial or administrative tribunal, and to recognize and enforce the authority.”  The Welfare Division could not wait for another tribunal to make a decision because under federal law they were mandated to go forward without delay.

Mr. Carpenter believed when the committee heard the bill in the 1997 session they were distressed relative to the loss of a jury trial with the overall piece of legislation.  He felt it had been so distasteful that the committee put forth a resolution indicating their concerns to the Federal Government.  The resolution did not clear both houses.  If his memory served him correctly the committee tried to amend the original bill to hold on to both judicial discretion and jury trial without surrendering them entirely.

Myla Florence pointed out the language was in state statute prior to the re-vamping of the entire child support enforcement sections as they related to the National Federal Welfare Reform Bill.  Those provisions had been in operation and provided by the courts; however, they had been inadvertently left out.

The Chairman asked Mr. Carpenter whether his question had been satisfied.  Mr. Carpenter said he thought the way it was written was wrong, and he would not support it.

Mr. Collins was having a hard time understanding the intent.  He interpreted the bill to mean if there had been a temporary child support order given during a divorce proceeding, a state could not stop the temporary child support.

Nancy Angres replied the intent was the child support case could not be stayed if other actions were pending.  The purpose was to make sure children received the support necessary in a timely manner.  Custody was a concern, but children did not always stay with the custodial or legal custodial parent.  Children often were shifted back and forth to grandparents, and they might want to get support from the natural parents.  In closing she asked if her remarks had made sense.

Chairman Anderson said no and tried to explain it one more time by setting up a scenario of what happened.  After divorce proceedings, the divorce was granted and child custody awarded, child support payments were made.  Everything was going smoothly.  The grandparents decided they needed some time with the child.  They came forward and requested some time.  The child support payments had not been paid as decreed. The Welfare Division was trying to make sure those proceedings by the district attorney’s office be allowed to continue to collect the delinquent child support payments.

Nancy Angres said that was a correct example of what they were trying to achieve with the legislation.

Mr. Sullivan said the mandate came about because in the Family Support Act, Congress mandated that the Southport Program have expedited procedures in establishing Child Support Orders.  Welfare had certain timeframes in which, when an individual applied for child support services the division needed to establish an order. Welfare had jurisdiction to establish a child support order while other action was pending.

Ms. Angres gave another example where a divorce was pending due to a property division dispute therefore no child support order had been finalized. The child support court would go ahead and enter an order in that situation even though the dispute could go on for a substantial amount of time.

Mr. Anderson asked if Mr. Collins’ concerns were met.  Mr. Collins said yes and wondered if the bill would do any more than allow child support to continue being paid until all of the issues were resolved.  Nancy Angres said no except for section 3.

Myla Florence restated there were two separate issues.  Sections 1 and 4 provided for the reinstatement of language previously in NRS relating to not staying a child support enforcement action while other legal matters were pending.  Section 3, amended NRS 425.520.  The Department of Wildlife and the Welfare Division entered into an agreement where the division would do computer matching by social security number to determine whether somebody applying for a license was delinquent in their child support obligation.  The agreement was used instead of adding a declaratory statement on the Division of Wildlife applications “I am not delinquent in my child support payments.”  It was similar to what the Welfare Division had done with the Department of Motor Vehicles. 

Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Florence what the Welfare Division was doing with the reams of paperwork received from every employer required to report on all new hires.  Ms. Florence said most of it dealt with filings employers made to the Employment Security Division through computer matching.  The information was received by the Welfare Division and submitted to the Federal Parent Locator Service.  The number of noncustodial parents the division had been able to locate and process for enforcement of child support had increased dramatically. 

Ms. Florence took exception to an early comment Mr. Carpenter had made that most people were doing very well in meeting their obligation.  She said the hard fact was, of all child support orders only about one-third were collected.  There were a large number of parents who did not fulfil their obligations which resulted in a bipartisan effort on the part of Congress to tighten up the child support enforcement provisions.

Patty Wagner, program officer, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Administrative Services, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, testified in support of section 3.  The language of section 3 had been determined in the 1977 Legislative Session and inadvertently left out.  She felt it would be difficult to get the 165 to 170 corporate and private businesses who sold the Nevada Division of Wildlife hunting and fishing licenses to police those social security numbers.  The Nevada Division of Wildlife had been collecting social security numbers on all recreational licenses for 2 years so they were prepared to make the computer match.

Mr. Anderson closed the hearing on S. B. 352.

ASSEMBLYMAN COLLINS MOVED TO DO PASS S. B. 352.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Carpenter voted no.

The bill was assigned to Assemblywoman McClain.

Chairman Anderson reviewed the schedule for the following week (Exhibit H). He announced he would not take a vote on S. B. 242 at that time and said it was scheduled to be heard again at the work session on May 4.

There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Novella Watson-Lee,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: