The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 9:20 a.m., on Tuesday, April 27, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman, Clark County Assembly District No. 2

Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Merle A. Berman, Clark County Assembly District No. 2, testified that A.B. 436 addresses the need for increased grandparent visitation rights and expands the rights of grandparents. She distributed a packet of letters in support of A.B. 436 (Exhibit C). Assemblywoman Berman stated when a child grows up in a single-parent household, there may be a loss of stability which a grandparent can provide. Additionally, a grandparent can act as a role model for the child. Assemblywoman Berman reviewed the changes to the statute provided in the bill. She said it amends the law regarding visitation rights of grandparents and limits the application of this statute to great-grandparents. In addition, the bill expands the circumstances a court must consider when determining whether to award additional visitation rights to grandparents. Assemblywoman Berman commented the factors included are: 1) whether the child has resided with the grandparents; 2) the amount of visitation time the child has previously spent with the grandparents, such as on holidays and at family gatherings; and 3) the amount of financial support the grandparent has provided for the child.

Assemblywoman Berman asserted the expansion of grandparents’ rights must be taken seriously, and each case should be reviewed thoroughly. Further, she emphasized the court needs to review all of the above factors with the best interest of the child as its primary consideration. Assemblywoman Berman pointed out section 1, subsection 2 of the bill extends visitation rights to a person with whom a child has had a meaningful relationship. She stated that would include a person other than a grandparent or a relative who took care of the child in lieu of the parent. Assemblywoman Berman also mentioned the rights of grandparents to visit a child are expanded to include circumstances in which the child’s parent was not legally married to the other parent and is now separated. She surmised in the turbulent environment such as divorce or separation, a grandparent might be the only stable force available to the child. The presence of a grandparent can alleviate the pain and the consequential long-term side effects of divorce.

Senator Care asked for the statutory definition of "meaningful relationship" and "reasonable right," saying those terms are vague. Assemblywoman Berman deferred to Judge Steel for those definitions. However, she did make reference to the letters included in Exhibit C in which bill language revisions were suggested and implemented. Assemblywoman Berman also mentioned an amendment to section 2 made by Assemblywoman Buckley, which includes the child living with someone other than a relative.

Bonnie L. Wilson, Concerned Citizen, testified she has 5 sons and 17 grandchildren. She said for the most part it has been "smooth sailing." Ms. Wilson noted she raised her five sons alone and recognizes the value of the "village" that it takes to raise children. She stated her youngest son has a son, and his mother and Ms. Wilson’s son never married. She advised that while the mother of her son’s son was going to school, Ms. Wilson took care of her grandson quite a bit of the time and helped support him financially. Ms. Wilson further remarked her grandson’s mother married another man. She indicated that when that marriage occurred, her presence was not welcome to her grandson’s stepfather. Additionally, Ms. Wilson advised that her son pays $450 per month in child support for his son, and is present as much as possible, having a demanding, out-of-state job. Ms. Wilson asserted she is fading in her grandson’s image. She remarked she was not invited to her grandson’s 5-year birthday party. Ms. Wilson told of calling and requesting to be allowed to attend, which she did, but was made to feel uncomfortable. She has also offered to baby-sit, and help out in any way that she can, but is made to feel like a pest. Ms. Wilson maintained A.B. 436 would be helpful to grandparents in her situation and would alleviate the need for expensive litigation just for the right to visit one’s grandchildren.

Cynthia (Dianne) Steel, District Judge, Family Division, Department G, Eighth Judicial District, stated she was in support of A.B. 436, and after reviewing her letter included in Exhibit C, remembered why she is in support of the bill. She testified that as a judge, quite often she gets motions for grandparents to have visitation with their grandchildren, and many of the situations discussed earlier in the meeting are presented to judges in court. Judge Steel mentioned that without some form of reasoning as to why judges should be able to grant grandparents’ rights in their grandchildren’s lives, grandparents are sometimes cut off from their grandchildren. She recalled instances of children who may have lived with "grandmother" for 7 or 8 years, and the grandmother was the day-care provider. When the custodial parent decided to move on with his or her life, he or she just walked away and did not give visitation rights. Judge Steel asserted the person who is hurt as much as the grandparent is the grandchild. She said there is a fine line the judge often cannot cross over if it will cause a conflict between the parent and grandparent. Additionally, Judge Steel stated the judges must decide what constitutes a "meaningful relationship" in each and every case. She mentioned in this day and age, children are having children, and they are often angry with their parents and taking their children away from their grandparents. Judge Steel referred to the provision in the bill regarding the grandparent being a good role model. She favors that provision and noted it would help judges in placing children, when they know two immature people are raising them, to know they could perhaps get a status check once a month from the grandparents to ensure the child is still thriving in their care and custody. Judge Steel offered her support of A.B. 436.

Chairman James inquired whether the amendment suggested by Judge Gaston (District Judge Bob Gaston) was made. Assemblywoman Berman replied that it was; it is now section 1, was previously section 2, and the original section 1 has been eliminated.

Senator Care asked how the bill would affect the grandparent that has never seen the grandchild. He mentioned cases in which the grandparent is not aware he or she has a grandchild until 2 or 3 years after the birth. Judge Steel answered each case is unique, and in the circumstance the senator just described, the judge would have to consider the factors as to why the grandparent did not know of the child's existence until a certain time. A consideration would also have to be made of how detrimental it may be for this new party to walk into a child’s life. Additionally, Judge Steel pointed out the type of visitation would be considered, such as an afternoon spent at McDonalds versus a 3-week trip to the grandparent’s country ranch. She said if both parents are active in the child’s life, the grandparents want to take the child to McDonalds for an afternoon visit, and both parents disagree with that, the judge would look at the facts and question why both parents were opposed to that visitation. The particular facts of each family unit would need to be considered by the judge before allowing such visitations, according to Judge Steel.

Stephen Brooks, Concerned Citizen, testified from Las Vegas that he was representing his wife and a family of 25 members in the greater Las Vegas area. He reported his son had a baby out of wedlock 4 years ago, and his wife and he enjoyed a relationship with their grandchild for 3.5 years on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. He said his grandson, Michael, was not only acquainted with his wife and him as his grandparents, but his great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, great-aunts, great-uncles, and a great many family members throughout Nevada and California. Mr. Brooks stated in October 1998, Michael’s mother decided she would no longer allow the father’s family visitation rights. He maintained Michael’s mother is taking out the problems between Michael’s father and herself on Michael’s extended family. Mr. Brooks remarked if a person is a grandparent, his or her offspring has created something that is a part of him or her, and most people want to be a part of that. When it is arbitrarily taken away, it hurts deeply. On behalf of his family, Mr. Brooks offered support of A.B. 436.

Michael Brooks, Concerned Citizen, indicated that Stephen Brooks is his father, and Michael is his son. He reiterated that due to personal conflicts between Michael’s mother and himself, his son and his grandparents are unable to have a relationship. Mr. Brooks stated that he has not seen his son in 8 months, and he is currently involved in a court case to gain joint custody. He said he feels like a total stranger to his son, and would like to have the situation resolved, both for his parents’ and his sake.

Tom Miller, Concerned Citizen, testified his wife and he are grandparents to their only son’s son. He stated, in their case, they could not love their own son any more than they love their grandson. Mr. Miller remarked his son and the mother of their grandson chose not to marry, and his son has visitation rights but his wife and he do not. He asserted this bill is extremely important to grandparents all over the country and especially in Nevada.

Judy Miller, Concerned Citizen, expressed her appreciation to Assemblywoman Berman for contacting her regarding A.B. 436. She told of going through the pregnancy with the mother of her grandson, going to the doctor, and watching the ultrasound procedure. Mrs. Miller stated she had a "wake up call" last weekend, which was supposed to be her son’s visitation weekend. She said her son was out of town, and her husband and she requested to have their grandson for a day and night and bring him back early on Sunday. Mrs. Miller reported their grandson’s mother made it clear that since their son did not choose to be with her, work out their problems and be a family, they could not have the baby. She said her husband and she do get to see their grandson and baby-sit as much as possible, but with a grandchild, it is never enough time. Mrs. Miller concluded by saying grandparents need to be protected, and hopefully A.B. 436 will pass.

Senator Care inquired whether A.B. 436 would include the rights of step-grandparents. Assemblywoman Berman stated that is covered in section 2 of the bill.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 436. He next opened the hearing on A.B. 456.

Assemblyman Richard (Rick) D. Perkins, Clark County Assembly District No. 23, testified the concept of A.B. 456 came to him upon learning there are custody problems when one spouse kills the other spouse. He stated the meat of A.B. 456 is in sections 2 and 5, and the other sections primarily bring the language into conformance with the rest of the statutes, as it relates to domestic violence. Assemblyman Perkins advised section 2 affects chapter 125A, and section 5 affects chapter 432B of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). He said the bill talks about cases in which a parent of a child is convicted of murder in the first degree of the other parent of the child, and the court determines custody based upon the best interest of the child. The child may also signify his or her consent to the custody situation with the live parent.

Chairman James mentioned the other sections of the bill appear to have a procedure for determining whether there is clear and convincing evidence that a person seeking custody of a child has engaged in domestic violence. He inquired whether that is in existing law. Brad Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, answered that is the practice that is currently in effect in chapter 125 of NRS for dissolution cases, and it is simply being added to the other chapters involving custody. He remarked that it tracks exactly the existing language in the divorce statute. Chairman James asked why it is also in subsection 2, of section 3, of A.B. 456, which is amending chapter 125A of NRS, and he inquired about NRS 125A.360. Mr. Wilkinson replied chapter 125A of NRS is the chapter on custody and visitation, and NRS 125A.360 is the statute that pertains to a child conceived as the result of sexual assault. The statute states the perpetrator of the sexual assault has no right to custody or visitation of the child unless the mother or legal guardian consents to that visitation. Chairman James noted that section 3 of the bill " . . . creates a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody of the child by the perpetrator of the domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child," and asked if that was something new. Mr. Wilkinson stated that currently exists just for divorce cases, but if the parties are not married, that would not be an issue. Chairman James did not see the relevance of that provision to the intent of the bill. Mr. Wilkinson commented murder of the parent and acts of domestic violence are not necessarily tied together. He continued, the bill makes the situations involving domestic violence consistent if there is not a divorce pending, but the case comes to court through some other manner, if the parties are not married or there are issues of abuse or neglect.

Assemblyman Perkins stated originally it was suggested that when somebody was awaiting trial for murder the visitation would be hampered in some way so that the child could be provided for, particularly on the day of the murder. He informed the committee the bill drafters ran into due process concerns and did not want to venture into that area.

Senator Care mentioned an earlier bill dealing with insurance proceeds and prohibition of a spouse collecting insurance proceeds where there has been a murder conviction. He suggested, perhaps the bill, instead of being restricted to where a parent is convicted of murder, could be expanded to include, "convicted of murder and/or wrongfully causing the death of the other parent." Assemblyman Perkins remarked he would be in favor of that addition.

Senator Wiener inquired whether "suitable age" is legally defined. She asked if it is 14 years of age. Mr. Wilkinson replied he is not certain, but is of the opinion that it depends upon specific circumstances. Therefore, it would be up to the judge’s discretion.

Susan Meuschke, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, testified she was there to speak in support of A.B. 456. She remarked there has been much confusion regarding why the sections of the bill were put together. She said there have been many bills across the country dealing with this particular issue of custody of the children when one parent kills the other. One concern that has been raised is cases involving battered women who have killed and whether or not they would be protected in this particular piece of legislation. In Ms. Meuschke’s opinion, that is why the section on domestic violence was included.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 456. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 544.

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8, advised she had chaired the interim committee on family courts. As a result of that, she told of working on important family law issues, one of which is A.B. 544. Assemblywoman Buckley noted A.B. 544 was brought to her by Judge Steel, and concerns the issue of a parent post-divorce, wanting to move out of state with his or her child. She stated the intent of the bill is to determine where parents have joint custody and the child is thriving: 1) should the best interest of the child be considered in granting the right of one parent to move out of state; and 2) if the parents have 50-50 joint legal custody, should the parent be required to do a custody change before moving out of state. Assemblywoman Buckley asserted this bill puts the child at the forefront of the consideration.

Judge Steel remarked she was testifying in favor of A.B. 544. She referred to her handout (Exhibit D), which is a narrative of the different types of move cases occurring in Nevada. She stated NRS 125A.350 is the move statute, as it currently stands. Judge Steel mentioned the cases that have come down regarding leaving the state with one’s child started with the Swartz case in 1991, and in that case the Nevada Supreme Court gave specific factors for the district court to resolve before permitting a move to occur. She said the court has to balance the parents’ interest in the freedom of movement as qualified by his or her custodial obligation, the state’s interest in protecting the best interest of the child, and the competing interest of the noncustodial parent. Judge Steel pointed out in that case the supreme court said there had to be an actual advantage shown for both the parent and child before the court would permit the move out of state. Additionally, there were five other factors the court had to consider after that, according to Judge Steel.

Another case of importance mentioned by Judge Steel was Porter v. Jones. In that case the court lowered the standard from actual advantage to a "good-faith reason" for moving. An example given by Judge Steel was a job in which the moving parent would be making $1,000 more per year. The next case Judge Steel talked about was Trent v. Trent, in which the Nevada Supreme Court no longer wished to overrule district court judges who were trying to keep parents and children in the state together. The court said they did not want to chain the custodial parent to the State of Nevada, and that NRS 125A.350 is primarily a notice statute. In other words, the parent who is planning to move needs to give notice of his or her intention to move, show his or her Swartz factors, and the court would permit that parent to move. The final case in this line of thinking, according to Judge Steel, is Cook v. Cook, that said the relationship standing was insufficient to deny the requesting parent’s request to relocate. She said all of the cases just mentioned involved a custodial parent who wanted to leave the state. The first time the supreme court considered a joint, 50-50-custody situation in which one of the parents wanted to move was in 1998. Judge Steel indicated Exhibit D contains additional examples of joint custody cases in which one parent wished to move from the state.

Judge Steel asserted NRS 125.510, subsection 2, modifies the change-of-custody statute. She continued, if parents have 50-50 custody, and the moving parent can show the move is in the best interest of the child, the 50-50-custody division should change, and one parent should become primary and the second parent secondary. Judge Steel cited Truax v. Truax as an example of considering the best interest of the child in a change-of-custody case. She maintained if one parent is leaving the state in a 50-50-custodial situation, they are, in effect, asking for a change of custody. Judge Steel added when the courts in the remaining cases in Exhibit D tried using the best interest of the child, they were overturned because they were required to consider the Swartz factors, which is in the move statute rather than the change-of-custody statute. Therefore, in Judge Steel’s opinion, this bill is the best plan by taking out the joint custodial language from the move statute and leaving in that in 50-50 custody the best interest of the child should be the determining factor. She mentioned the Swartz factors are simple, good-faith reasons to move and a simple burden to prove. To be able to overcome that, the parent who stays in Nevada has to be able to prove the move was for a bad intent, which is a difficult burden to prove. Judge Steel commented the parents do not have equal burdens, and if they have equally shared physical custody of the child, they should have equal burdens before changing the balance.

Senator Wiener pointed out, in the McGuinness v. McGuinness case in Exhibit D, physical separation is no longer the criteria in determining the relationship hardship due to technology. She asked if Judge Steel had worked with that standard. Judge Steel replied that standard has come before her, especially in move cases. She advised if the custodial parent can show they can maintain a relationship between the child and the parent that remains in Nevada, with a good visitation plan, then the move on a custodial/noncustodial parent relationship is well served. As far as a joint custodial situation where the child is an infant, it would be more difficult to maintain a relationship with the child via e-mail or telephone calls, and a more difficult decision. Senator Wiener asked whose burden it is to place, before the court, an alternative to a meaningful relationship when the child is an infant. Judge Steel replied the custodial parent would provide the court with an alternative visitation schedule, providing 2 or 3 months in the summer time, alternate Christmas holidays, whole spring breaks, and so forth.

Senator Care stated he loathed to involve gender, however, Judge Steel had mentioned in Trent v. Trent that "many district courts are using NRS 125A.350 as a means to chain custodial parents, most often women, to the State of Nevada." He pointed out in the cases cited since, the petitioners were all mothers, and asked if Judge Steel has more mothers petitioning to move out of state than fathers. Judge Steel answered in eight out of ten cases, the mother wishes to move out of state with the child. She explained most of the time the custodial parent is the mother with roots in another state and had followed her husband to Nevada when he obtained employment in the state. Assemblywoman Buckley added, in cases where the woman has primary custody, the only thing they are adding is to ensure the best interest of the child is considered. Where the real change is, according to Assemblywoman Buckley, is where the court has determined it should be joint custody, with a 50-50 split. In that case the custodial parent cannot just file a motion to move, but must reapply for custody where the court can consider all of the factors. In Assemblywoman Buckley’s opinion, there should be a higher burden than just a motion to move when there are two committed parents. On the other hand, if there are not two committed parents, nothing should change in Assemblywoman Buckley’s opinion, other than asking the courts to look at the best interest of the child.

Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, Marriage and Family Therapists, testified she had worked on A.B. 544 with Assemblywoman Buckley and Judge Steel, and in her opinion, the bill goes right to the heart of what they are trying to accomplish. She strongly supports A.B. 544.

Chairman James mentioned there are three attorneys in his law firm who practice domestic law and sometimes handle custody cases. Therefore, he will not vote on A.B. 544. There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 544.

Chairman James opened the work session with A.B. 50, and referred to the Work Session Document (Exhibit E).

Chairman James remarked A.B. 50 is Assemblywoman Buckley’s bill regarding the authority of the Chief Judge. He said there was a request for an amendment that would delete the reporting requirements. Chairman James stated Assemblywoman Buckley did not support that change. He recommended excluding the amendment and asked for a motion to do pass A.B. 50.

*****

The next bill on the work session schedule addressed by Chairman James was A.B. 51.

Chairman James remarked the bill requires all the courts to submit a written report to the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Chairman James noted the proposed amendment is the same one objected to by Assemblywoman Buckley.

*****

Chairman James advised that A.B.154 was being held at the request of Assemblywoman Buckley.

The Chairman next addressed A.B. 165.

Senator Titus stated she has no problem with the restitution portion of the bill, but questioned the photographic lineup provision. Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained that section provides the pictures may be used to conduct a photographic lineup. She said the testimony was that there was no change as far as the confidentiality provisions governing photographs of this kind, and they would only be using photographs of children who have been adjudicated delinquent.

Senator McGinness recalled he had specifically asked the question that if a child was photographed and then found not guilty, that photograph would not be included in a lineup and was told only those found guilty would be included.

*****

Chairman James addressed A.B. 221, and remarked it was Assemblyman Anderson’s bill regarding firearms and cruelty to animals.

*****

Chairman James next addressed A.B. 229.

The Chairman mentioned there was a proposed amendment from Senator Wiener to "Include training in conflict resolution and anger management in the list of required components for the program under section 1, subsection 3."

Senator Care stated he was not certain if the bill was restricted to a first-time offender. Mr. Wilkinson remarked that it would have to be a first-time offender.

*****

Chairman James advised the next bill on the work session agenda was A.B. 262, regarding parental notification of a child being taken into custody.

*****

Chairman James stated the next bill, A.B. 304, involves filing of false complaints against peace officers.

Senator Care requested the letters provided by Gary Peck, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union, be included for the record (Exhibit F). Senator Titus indicated she had not read the letters but after listening to Gemma Greene’s testimony and discussion about how it would work and the chilling effect it might have on people filing complaints, she would like to think about passage of this bill a little longer.

Chairman James commented, in his recollection of the testimony, there is a fairly high standard in that it has to be a knowingly false report or fraudulent, meaning the reporter would have to intend to deceive somebody. He clarified it would not get into the area of a person filing with the erroneous belief the report was true. Mr. Wilkinson affirmed that was correct. Senator Titus inquired whether internal affairs would be willing to turn over its investigation records to the district attorney. Senator Care pointed out, as David Gibson testified in the original hearing, internal affairs probably would not have a choice. He said if law enforcement is willing to turn over information about the internal investigation as well as information regarding other incidents by the same officer, he would be in favor of the bill. Senator Washington agreed with Senator Care’s comments.

*****

Chairman James next addressed A.B. 314.

The Chairman advised this bill would establish the mechanism to allow local governments to go above the tax cap to fund certain regional facilities for juveniles. He read an amendment by Carole A. Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, that would, "Create a provision which would allow a total maximum rate of property tax (5 cents per hundred dollars of assessed valuation) for operations and maintenance . . . " from page 4 of Exhibit E. Senator McGinness remarked that if the committee chooses to pass the bill and its amendments that would be fine, but otherwise, in his opinion, the policy decision should be made in the Senate Committee on Taxation. Chairman James stated the committee would re-refer A.B. 314 to the Senate Committee on Taxation.

*****

Chairman James stated A.B. 469 is Assemblyman Goldwater’s bill regarding spendthrift trusts.

The Chairman advised of a proposed amendment on behalf of the Nevada Bankers Association by John Sande, which is included on page 5 of Exhibit E.

*****

Chairman James addressed the next bill on the work session agenda, A.B. 545.

The Chairman noted the technical amendment on page 6 of Exhibit E, correcting the misprinted fees.

Senator Care indicated, in his opinion, the raise in court reporters’ fees is overdue, and he is in favor of the bill.

*****

Chairman James next addressed A.B. 548, saying it would provide a new exemption in the amount of $500,000 held in an annuity or similar instrument for a person 65 years of age or older unable to live independently and living in a facility for long-term care.

Senator Wiener inquired whether $500,000 is an amount federally established for individuals 65 years of age or older. Chairman James replied it is the existing retirement account exemption. Senator Titus remarked it covers people who are in and out of a rest home rather than those who must sell their assets to pay for long-term care.

Senator Care expressed reservation about the bill due to the potential for abuse. Chairman James mentioned there are separate fraudulent conveyance laws. He also noted the bill requires individuals to be living in a long-term care facility, so if the individual leaves the facility, he or she will no longer have the exemption. Chairman James suggested the committee wait and make sure the debtor and creditor bar has reviewed the bill. No action was taken on A.B. 548.

Chairman James moved on to A.B. 621.

The Chairman noted there were several proposed amendments to this bill, and he has reservations about the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History collecting so much information. Senator McGinness addressed the comment by Chairman James about information regarding a towed vehicle being on record in the repository. He advised last session an individual from Amargosa Valley, a remote area of rural Nevada, had his car stolen. Senator McGinness said the owner of the vehicle had reason to believe it was in the Las Vegas area, which it was, and by the time it was found it had an $800 storage fee. The fee was that high because there was a lack of communication between the various agencies that the vehicle had been found on the street and had been towed. Senator McGinness asserted that type of situation is the reason for including a record of towed vehicles in the repository.

Senator Wiener asked if the letter referred to by Dennis DeBacco during the hearing on A.B. 621 was an assurance that only the criminal histories would be part of the compact, and the records of public safety would be excluded. Chairman James mentioned Senator Care requested the letter. Senator Care explained his concern was that the federal government would interpret the compact to mean that everything in A.B. 621, including the public safety records, would fall under the documents proposed to be released under the federal compact. He stated Mr. DeBacco did not interpret it in that way. Senator Care requested documentation ensuring the federal government also does not interpret it that way. He advised that assurance has not yet arrived. Chairman James indicated the committee would hold A.B. 621 until documentation is received from the federal government. Therefore, no action was taken on A.B. 621.

The next bill addressed by Chairman James was A.B. 648.

The Chairman referred to the proposed amendment under tab B of Exhibit E, and stated he is in favor of passage of the bill, with the amendment.

*****

Chairman James addressed A.B. 670, stating the bill would allow employees of the court to come under county jurisdiction rather than the court. He noted the court is opposed to this bill.

*****

Assembly Joint Resolution (A.J.R.) 4 was the next item addressed by Chairman James.

Senator Care remarked, in his opinion, the rule against perpetuities does not need to be enshrined in a constitution. He noted the Legislature still has statutory discretion to enact laws relating to perpetuities. Further, Senator Care pointed out it is confusing. He added he is not opposed to amending the constitution as long as they retain the legislative discretion to enact legislation, if necessary. Chairman James agreed with Senator Care’s statements.

*****

Chairman James stated there was an amendment to Senate Bill (S.B.) 326 that would make the effective date "upon passage and approval."

*****

The Chairman next called for a motion on A.B. 436 regarding grandparents’ rights.

*****

The next bill addressed by Chairman James was A.B. 456.

Senator Washington remarked section 3, subsection 2, was still unclear to him. Chairman James stated all that is addressed in chapter 125 of NRS that deals with dissolution of marriage and determinations made therein regarding the custody of children. He continued, the bill is being added into chapter 125A of NRS which deals with custody and support of a child, and visitation in the other contexts, as well as chapter 432B of NRS which deals with child abuse. Chairman James explained that it says if either parent is seeking the custody of a child when they have engaged in one or more acts of domestic violence against that child, there is a rebuttable presumption that sole or joint custody of the child by the perpetrator of that domestic violence is not in the best interest of the child. Subsection 2 states there must be an evidentiary hearing in which the court will try to determine which parent was the primary physical aggressor, when it cannot be determined that one parent was the primary aggressor.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

*****

Finally, Chairman James addressed A.B. 544, which would bear upon the rights of a spouse under joint custody regarding the moving of a child out of state. He reiterated that he would not be voting on the bill.

*****

There being no further business to come before the meeting, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 11:23 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jo Greenslate,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: