The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:54 a.m., on Tuesday, May 4, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33

Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14

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

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Jo Greenslate, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Elko County Assembly District No. 33, testified he was speaking in favor of A.B. 158, and the two parts of the bill he is specifically interested in are the rural advisory board and creation of advisory boards within each judicial district. He opined often rural areas are left out of the legislative process, and the formation of rural advisory boards would enable rural districts to participate more fully in finding solutions to problems relating to placement of children in rural communities. Assemblyman Carpenter further expressed his opinion that A.B. 158 is an important step in helping the children of Nevada. He urged the committee to take swift action on A.B. 158.

Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14, gave a general overview of A.B. 158, saying it makes changes to the process for the placement of children in foster care and to the adoption system. Additionally, it amends various Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to bring Nevada in line with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996. Continuing, Assemblywoman Koivisto noted chapter 128 of NRS is amended to encourage courts to make an effort to ensure proceedings conducted pursuant to this chapter are completed within 6 months after a petition is filed. If parental rights are terminated, preference shall be given to placing the child together with his siblings. Also, she commented any search for a relative to place the child with must be completed within 1 year. Assemblywoman Koivisto stated this section of the bill falls in with Senator Porter’s Senate Bill (S.B.) 232.

Assemblywoman Koivisto further advised that chapter 432 of NRS is amended to require the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) to notify a person in writing as soon as practicable as to whether their application as an adoptive parent or foster care provider will be considered for approval. The rural advisory board, to expedite proceedings, is also created within the DCFS. Additionally, Assemblywoman Koivisto stated the rural advisory board shall review the findings of each local advisory board and prepare an annual report summarizing its activities. District courts in all counties of less than 100,000 may create local advisory boards, according to Assemblywoman Koivisto. She continued each local advisory board shall review cases referred to it by district courts that have not approved the permanent placement of a child within 12 months. The local advisory board shall make recommendations to the court to expedite completion of the case. A.B. 158 also requires DCFS to establish a panel of volunteer members to evaluate the effectiveness of agencies providing protective services for children. Agencies that provide protective services are required to submit an annual plan to DCFS for its approval. The plan should ensure the agency is making reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify a family to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of a child from his home and make it possible for the child’s safe return.

Further, Assemblywoman Koivisto indicated chapter 432 of NRS is also amended to ensure that any person that has a special interest in a child shall be notified and involved in the plan for the temporary or permanent placement of that child and shall be allowed to offer recommendations for the plan. Assemblywoman Koivisto noted this is something that is really important and has not been done in the past. She said teachers, foster parents, people who know the child, will be involved. If any hearing is held to review the current placement, the courts must notify any persons planning to adopt the child, relatives of the child, or providers of foster care who are currently providing care to the child. The bill would also require the courts to hold a hearing for the permanent placement of a child not later than 12 months, which is a reduction from 18 months, after the initial removal of a child. Additionally, Assemblywoman Koivisto remarked A.B. 158 revises provisions for guardians ad litem who represent and protect the best interest of a child until excused by the court.

Senator Wiener inquired about the reference to 14 months in section 7, subsection 2 of the bill. Assemblywoman Koivisto replied the 12 months refers to the permanent placement after the initial removal. The 14 and 20 months refer to the time after a child has been placed in foster care, in which there must be a plan in place for permanency.

Senator Care referred to section 18, subsection 3, which reads, "An agency which provides protective services is not required to make the reasonable efforts required by subsection 1 if the court finds . . . ," and mentioned it then talks about murder or voluntary manslaughter. He asked if that requires a conviction. Assemblywoman Koivisto answered she was not certain if it required a conviction or if they had just been charged and removed from the home. She deferred to May Shelton or Stephen Shaw.

Senator McGinness pointed out the bill says the district court in a judicial district may create a local advisory board, and queried whether Assemblymen Dini or Carpenter were comfortable enough that the district courts in rural areas would create these advisory boards so that they will function properly. He called attention to the fact they are voluntary.

Assemblyman Joseph E. Dini, Jr., Carson City, Lyon and Storey counties Assembly District No. 38, expressed his opinion that creation of local advisory boards should be mandatory because there is a problem getting the courts to voluntarily create advisory boards. He stated that could be a possible amendment to the bill. Other than that change, Assemblyman Dini stated he is proud of A.B. 158, and many people have worked hard in drafting it. He introduced his administrative aide, Paula Winne, and advised she is also knowledgeable about the bill. He urged support for A.B. 158.

Assemblyman Carpenter stated making it mandatory for local judges to appoint an advisory board would not be a problem. Assemblyman Carpenter advised it was the bill drafters’ opinion that the judges would be willing to appoint the board because delays in placing children is such a problem. Senator McGinness remarked in his opinion it should be "shall," but he did not want to imperil the bill at this point in session by making it a mandatory requirement.

Senator Care indicated he was trying to clear up a bit of vagueness in section 24, subsection 2, regarding the definition of a person having a special interest in a child. Paragraph (a), subparagraph (1) refers to a relative of the child, and Senator Care asked if that would mean a relative by blood or any relative such as a great aunt, for example. Assemblywoman Koivisto answered the specifics of that were not discussed. Assemblyman Carpenter addressed Senator Care’s question by stating what they were trying to do was bring in anyone that had a special interest in the child so they could testify as to what they knew about the child. He said currently the law does not allow those other than a parent to testify on the child’s behalf.

Regarding the bifurcated system currently in place in Nevada’s two largest counties, Assemblyman Carpenter mentioned there was a bill scheduled to be heard the next day (May 5, 1999) that would request a study of the bifurcated system. He was hopeful the interim study would be approved due to the difficulty of working with a bifurcated system. Senator Washington advised that the committee sponsored Senate Bill (S.B.) 288 that would promote a pilot program to deal with the bifurcated system in Washoe County.

Charles M. McGee, Chief District Judge, Department 2, Second Judicial District, stated he specializes in juvenile family law, and was at the hearing to speak in favor of A.B. 158. He said he would focus on one topic only, which is that bills in many states similar to A.B. 158 are dangerous. Judge McGee explained A.B. 158 truncates the process at the back end of the system, which is good for children who are languishing in adoptive homes and foster placements. However, he asserted unless the same effort is made at the front end of the system, a terrible disservice would be done to natural parents. Judge McGee continued if Nevada adopts procedures current in some states, in which the judge sees parents only once a year or 18 months and admonishes them to get off drugs, get rid of their abusive boyfriends, and so forth, and they have no idea of how to do those things, it begins the inexorable process of termination of parental rights. He emphasized that would be unfair to children who have bonded with their natural parents. Judge McGee remarked fortunately here in Nevada, that danger exists only in part because Nevada is simultaneously putting pressure on the front end of the system. He pointed out Nevada has juvenile drug courts, family drug courts, and excellent social service delivery systems.

Judge McGee commented the slight danger he does perceive in Nevada is in respect to the bifurcation system, but he is unequivocally in favor of A.B. 158. He explained bifurcation adds 2 to 3 months to the adoption process. If looking at a 12-month window for permanency decisions and mandatory termination of parental rights if the child has been in foster care 14 of the last 20 months, 2 or 3 months of the reunification period cannot be wasted. Further, Judge McGee asserted A.B. 158 and S.B. 288 act in tandem and need to be enacted together to eliminate the last vestige of danger here in Nevada.

Michael P. Gibbons, District Judge, Department 2, Ninth Judicial District, testified he was the lone rural judge that was on the court improvement project. He stated the project started several years ago due to the federal legislation referred to by Judge McGee and Assemblywoman Koivisto. Judge Gibbons further explained the project worked on putting some changes together to comply with federal law, but also gave discretion to fine tune Nevada law to make it work better. He said A.B. 315 came out of that project, and it is being combined with A.B. 158, which he supports.

Continuing, Judge Gibbons commented the bill drafters combined some of the adoption procedures with other aspects of the bill. He advised they focused on the court improvement project as it relates to the child abuse and neglect situation to give the court more discretion in placing children in homes that are best for them. Further, Judge Gibbons testified the bill expands the current law to allow judges more placement discretion. He made the point that if the child’s home situation does not improve throughout the time the child is placed outside his home, termination may be the only alternative. Judge Gibbons advised there is still some discretion for judges regarding termination; it is not mandatory. He said the judge looks at the bottom line, which is the best interest of the child. Judge Gibbons remarked parents need to know up front what the rules are and what will happen if they do not comply. He said he is not particularly in favor of making advisory boards mandatory. Additionally, Judge Gibbons pointed out A.B. 158 says that a resident may make a request by petitioning the court and setting forth the reasons the creation of a local advisory board is advisable. The bill also includes the procedure for creation of a board.

Senator Washington inquired whether there is a provision for extending parental rights termination beyond 1 year if the biological parent is making an effort to clean up his or her life through drug rehabilitation and so forth. Judge McGee replied it is discretionary with the court. He also mentioned there are new federal regulations that allow the court to exempt from that short-term window people who are actively participating in a recovery program. Senator Washington also mentioned his concern about parents who are incarcerated and there is no way of determining if they are making a reasonable effort to become rehabilitated. He asked if their parental rights would automatically be severed after 12 months. Judge McGee answered he could only answer as to how he would treat it. In his opinion it is possible for people who are incarcerated, even for periods of longer than 12 months, to retain their rights to be with their children once they finish their term of imprisonment as long as they stay involved and are a part of the case plan. Judge McGee remarked some incarcerated parents are only out for themselves, and they ignore their children before and after imprisonment. Therefore, it depends on the individual case. In Judge McGee’s opinion incarceration itself would not be grounds for termination of parental rights. However, if the prison term was long, 10 or 15 years, for example, adoption may be in the best interest of the child. He said there are now open adoptions too, in which parents retain certain rights to be able to see and visit their children.

Judge Gibbons told of having a case the preceding day involving incarceration of a parent in which he explained to the parent that being incarcerated could be a defense due to the difficulty of having regular contact with his child while being locked up.

Senator Care reiterated his earlier question to Assemblywoman Koivisto regarding the language in section 18. That language states the agency does not need to make reasonable efforts if the court finds the parent or primary caretaker has committed, aided, or abetted in the commission of, or attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit murder or voluntary manslaughter. He asked if Judge Gibbons interpreted that to mean a conviction is required. Judge Gibbons replied the language comes out of the federal act and was changed very slightly as to which offenses would result in this end. He asserted it does not say "conviction," and he would read it as the court would find by preponderance of the evidence that this happened. Judge McGee disagreed, stating the standard of proof, even in a civil proceeding, would be higher than a preponderance. He added in fairness to the parents, there ought to be a higher standard of proof if there is no conviction for one of the major felonies.

Jim Baker, President, Baker Fast Foods, testified he was at the hearing to represent the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption (DTFA) and submitted a letter from Jann Heffner, Executive Director, Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption, addressed to Senator Mark James, and dated April 8, 1999 (Exhibit C). Additionally, he stated he was representing a group of concerned businessmen who are in support of A.B. 158, and said they have formed a coalition in Nevada called the "Nevada Adoption Foundation." The foundation’s purpose, according to Mr. Baker, is to raise funds in support of adoption specifically in Nevada and to find partners in the local and state business community to also support this effort. He told of partnering with a Nevada statewide bank and reported submitting a grant to the DTAF again this year. Mr. Baker remarked they received a substantial grant last year from DTAF. He read Exhibit C, which encourages adoption of A.B. 158.

Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, remarked this bill is a combination of efforts made in Yerington, Nevada, and the Court Improvement Act. He pointed out the bill drafters have a strategic vision that Senator Porter’s S.B. 232 is going to help them meet, along with A.B. 158 and Senator Washington’s S.B. 288. Mr. Shaw mentioned there is federal money tied to this bill, and in his opinion, A.B. 158 is sound public policy. He gave a background on the federal level, saying there were 500,000 children in foster care in 1980. In the mid-1980s the number was approximately 250,000, but by 1994 it had gone back up to 500,000 children. Mr. Shaw indicated Nevada foster children are in foster care for an average of 34 to 35 months. He maintained there are several things A.B. 158 would do to shorten that period of time such as allow concurrent planning. Currently attempts must be made to keep a child in his or her own home, and when that does not work after 18 months, then permanency planning may be commenced, including termination of parental rights. Mr. Shaw said A.B. 158 allows adoption agencies to go down two tracks at the same time. Regarding Mr. Baker’s testimony, Mr. Shaw asserted this law needs to be passed for Nevada’s children and families, but asked what happens if there are 400 or 500 children with terminated parental rights and no adoptive homes. He remarked that is where Wendy’s Foundation and Norwest Bank are helping in recruiting adoptive parents. He maintained all ends must be acted on at once, particularly the back end so that children are not caught in a "legal limbo."

Anne Cathcart, Special Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, introduced Gene P. Etcheverry, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Attorney General, and mentioned her handout, a letter addressed to Honorable Mark James, dated May 3, 1999, "Re: Fiscal Note Justification for A.B. 158" (Exhibit D). Ms. Cathcart advised at the time her agency put together its original budget, it anticipated this bill due to changes in the federal law. She pointed out this bill combines the two aforementioned bills, A.B. 158 and A.B. 315, and remarked her agency’s original budget requested a full-time deputy to cover the increased workload that would be caused by passage of A.B. 158. Ms. Cathcart emphasized one full-time deputy position is a conservative estimate of manpower needed to handle the additional workload. She also mentioned the position would likely be 50 percent federally funded, and therefore, only half the fiscal impact would be on the state.

Gene P. Etcheverry, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Attorney General, testified the financial impact created by passage of A.B. 158, as presented to the committee, sets forth the cost of a full-time deputy attorney general position over both years of the biennium. The position would serve the rural areas within the state, and thus rural travel expenses have been included as well as all one-time equipment expenses associated with the new position. Chairman James asked whether this bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Shaw answered it was heard in a joint subcommittee of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. Ms. Cathcart clarified originally there was a fiscal note on both A.B. 158 and A.B. 315. At some point, the attorney general’s office had to clarify what fiscal note was going with both bills combined. Ms. Cathcart continued the fiscal note attached to the letter in Exhibit D is not the current fiscal note. There is a second amended fiscal note, and for the fiscal year 1999-2000, the fiscal note total is $71,357; for fiscal year 2000-2001, it is $85,513. Ms. Cathcart said she would provide copies of the second amended fiscal note to the committee.

Paula Winne, Executive Assistant to Assembly Speaker Joseph E. Dini, Jr., stated according to her understanding of the proceedings in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means, Nancy Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General, in presenting the two offers mentioned there was already a position funded in the attorney general’s office in the Division of Human Resources. Ms. Winne advised Ms. Angres offered that if this position would not be funded, they would be willing to swap the funded position for the DCFS position. In Ms. Winne’s opinion, that is how A.B. 158 got out of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Etcheverry clarified the attorney general’s position that if there is a trade-off between the child enforcement deputy position included in its executive budget recommendation and this position, it was noted by Ms. Angres that the attorney general’s office would prefer to have this position. Assemblyman Dini concurred this position is necessary, because there is only one deputy position for all the rural counties in the state. He clarified that it can be put into the budget process but does not need to be added to the bill. Mr. Shaw added the division did not add a fiscal note to the bill. Chairman James pointed out that somebody signed a fiscal note from the DCFS and added it to the bill.

Senator Wiener inquired whether going from "may" to "shall," requiring all counties to establish an advisory board, would impact the budget amount needed. Mr. Shaw answered negatively. He addressed Chairman James, saying the division may have had a fiscal note early on, but it is indicated in the bill that the division has the resources to assume the cost for any advisory board, whether it says "may" or "shall."

Responding to a question by Senator Washington, Ms. Cathcart stated 50 percent of the cost of the position would be paid for federally rather than by the state. Senator Washington inquired whether that would be by matching funds. Mr. Etcheverry clarified it would actually be paid through the DCFS through federal funding to that agency, and the state’s method of funding would be through the cost allocation plan.

In reading some of the language included in the attorney general’s letter (Exhibit D), Senator Titus asked Ms. Cathcart if other states were following the same path. She wondered if perhaps the bill made termination of parental rights too hasty. Ms. Cathcart deferred to Don Winne, but first mentioned that due to changes in the federal law, certain portions of the bill are now required at the state level.

Donald W. Winne, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Child and Family Services, Office of the Attorney General, stated the original bill that was drafted from the court improvement project came out of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). He advised that a requirement to be passed by all states is that if they wish to obtain federal money available through project funding, they need to substantially pass the provisions that are in ASFA. Additionally, Mr. Winne commented in nearly all cases the attorney general’s office brings termination cases on behalf of the DCFS.

Senator Washington referred to section 18, subsection 3, paragraph (e), subparagraph (1) and requested clarification that a father can lose his parental rights if he is not married to the mother and fails within 30 days after learning of the birth of his child to visit the child, to commence proceedings to establish his paternity of the child, or to provide financial support for the child. Mr. Winne replied in his reading of that provision, it is his understanding the division would not have to try to reunify with a father who had done nothing within 30 days after learning of the birth of a child that may be his. He said "reasonable efforts" does not mean automatic termination; it just means the agency does not have to do a case plan with a person who has not established the legal fact that he is the father. Senator Washington asked if the provision needs to be verbatim from the federal act. Mr. Winne stated he would look into that along with answers to a couple of other questions that were raised during the hearing and bring that information back to the committee. Mr. Winne noted the court improvement project looked at this with judges and attorneys that deal in this area. He said if it is not verbatim in the ASFA, it may have been something that the courts or the judges that deal in this area wanted, and Senator Washington should ask the judges their specific reason for including this when it is not verbatim in the ASFA language.

Mr. Shaw pointed out this is one of the areas in which Nevada put its stamp on the legislation. He said this provision applies when somebody shows no interest in his child. Mr. Shaw asserted DCFS has no interest in terminating parental rights if there is a father who wants to accept responsibility, either financial or emotional. He explained it is not their intention to terminate parental rights on a 30-day notice. However, when a person has been notified and has shown absolutely no interest, the matter has been plead, the person has been noticed of a hearing, and he does not show up, Mr. Shaw surmised those are additional grounds for termination of parental rights.

MaryEllen White, MSW, LSW, Social Welfare Program Chief, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, testified part of the impetus behind the Adoption and Safe Families Act was states’ confusion as to what constitutes reasonable efforts and the fact that because states believe they must make reasonable efforts in every circumstance, they often returned children to homes that in the end were unsafe. Ms. White explained stemming from that were the categories contained in subsection 3, some of which are Nevada’s and some of which belong to the ASFA. She continued rather than give her division a definition of reasonable efforts, the ASFA excludes those serious situations so that states and agencies are not feeling compelled to make efforts in cases in which it makes no sense to do so. Chairman James agreed with Ms. White’s statements, but pointed out his colleague’s concern with paragraph (e) was the mere fact that somebody did not undertake legal proceedings to seek custody within a 30-day period may not be the same type of trigger mechanism as the fact they were convicted twice of abusing or neglecting a sibling of the child, for example.

Ms. White offered to tell which exceptions were Nevada’s and which were federal. She stated section 18, subsection 3, paragraph (a), subparagraph (1) and (2) are from the ASFA; subparagraph (3) was added by the court improvement project. Abandonment, according to Ms. White, is from the ASFA, and paragraph (e) was an attempt to expand upon abandonment as a federal requirement to take a look at the cases seen frequently in Nevada, particularly an infant with an unmarried father who makes no effort to come forward. Chairman James pointed out Ms. White skipped subparagraph (4) of paragraph (a). Ms. White stated subparagraph (4) is federal. Senator Titus requested clarification of whether subparagraph (e) was Nevada’s expansion of the federal abandonment definition. Ms. White remarked that was Nevada’s addition. Senator Titus asked what the federal law says about abandonment. Chairman James read a list of circumstances under which reasonable efforts are not required by the agency and that are already mandated by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 (CAPTA). Therefore, all of subparagraph (4) of paragraph (a), paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) are Nevada’s language. He asked Ms. White if she agreed. Ms. White pointed out the ASFA does consider prior termination of a sibling as being one of the grounds to be considered. Other than that she agreed.

Beverly Block, Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), stated she has been a CASA for 3 years; 1 year in Douglas County, and 2 years in Carson City. She advised she has three cases, one of which concerns her. Ms. Block said reasonable efforts were made to locate the child’s parents, and the child was just placed at 3 years of age. It is Ms. Block’s opinion the child could have been placed much earlier. She said the little boy was in seven placements before being placed permanently which has traumatized him and caused him to have nightmares. Ms. Block urged support of A.B. 158.

Kathleen Adkins, Foster/Adoptive Parent, distributed a photograph (Exhibit E) of her adopted daughter, "Sara," Sara’s court advocate, "Cojean," Sara’s therapist, "Dorrie," and Sara’s adoption caseworker, "Linda Marie Rose." Ms. Adkins remarked the committee was not in the position to make a difference in one child’s life but in hundreds of children’s lives. She listed the ways in which the committee could make that difference. The committee: 1) can plan the demise of the bifurcated system; 2) can create a clearing house for reports of abuse; 3) can speed up the placement plans for hundreds of children; 4) can support a system of advisory boards that will offer foster parents, particularly in rural areas, a resource for concerns as they wait by the phone for returned phone calls from overspent case workers; 5) can speed up the proper termination of parental rights; 6) will somehow defend the allocation of 15 new case workers to assist when the need has been proven to be well over 100 case workers; and 7) will make the difference, for better or worse, in the lives of hundreds of Nevada children. Additionally, Ms. Adkins remarked, as a lay person listening to discussion of the funding of a position or positions, she hopes that will not be a stumbling block to passage of this bill. Finally, with all due respect, shame on the committee for spending so much time talking about the rights of fathers if that issue keeps the committee from passing A.B. 158.

Lawrence Moorehead, Foster Parent, stated his wife and he had been foster parents in the State of Nevada for the last 4 years, and have had approximately 45 children go through their home. In Mr. Moorehead’s opinion the primary consideration should be the welfare of the children. He told of having three girls in their home for 4 years, and said it took over 3 years to complete a termination of parental rights for various reasons. One reason was a lack of concurrent planning at that time. The birth mother kept falling in and out of compliance, continually restarting the case plan. Mr. Moorehead also told of children who have been placed, come back, and are placed again, due to inadequate research of the home family to ensure it could meet the needs of the child. The most important part of the bill, in Mr. Moorehead’s opinion, is shortening the length of time it takes to obtain a determination regarding a child’s permanent placement. Another important provision of the bill would be concurrent planning for reunification and termination of parental rights in case something falls through. In conclusion Mr. Moorehead offered his support to A.B. 158.

Dan Lemaire, Foster Parent, testified that his wife and he have been foster parents for a little over 5 years, and they adopted their first foster child. They now have four biological sons and their adopted son. He said society is changing with an increase in unmarried parents, drug abuse, and a lack of parenting skills. Mr. Lemaire observed that the Legislature and the DCFS are scrambling to keep up with the changes and trying to figure out how to respond. He pointed out there is a phase lag between where society is going and how to respond, which puts a huge strain on those trying to provide protection and care for the children caught in the middle. Mr. Lemaire asserted in spite of the overload of the social workers, they have always responded and provided information to his wife and him, both at the county and state levels. He stated the bifurcated system creates many problems in that they must sometimes decide whether to keep a child when the child transfers to the state for an unknown length of time. Mr. Lemaire also noted there is a big difference between the amount of money received by foster parents at the county level versus the state level. He stated it is unfortunate, but sometimes that makes a difference. Mr. Lemaire said he is in favor of A.B. 158, and is in agreement with Judge McGee’s concern that there be an up-front effort to work with parents. He is also in favor of section 18 in which the requirements to make reasonable efforts would be waived in the stated situations.

Peggy Pauly, Foster Parent, submitted a copy of her written testimony (Exhibit F) and offered an amendment to section 14, subsection 1 (Exhibit G). She requested the word "may" be changed to "shall," mandating the district court in each judicial district that includes a county whose population is less than 100,000, to create a local advisory board. Ms. Pauly stated she is in favor of the bill, and if the change cannot be made at this time, she would adopt a "wait-and-see" attitude and return in the next legislative session to make necessary changes. She introduced her adopted daughters, "Heather" and "Brianna," and said they never leave their daughters with babysitters due to the special needs of Heather. Ms. Pauly continued, saying Heather is 39 months old and has been in the adoption system since she was 1 week old. She said her husband and she are adopting Heather. Further Ms. Pauly advised Heather’s termination process took 28 months with no known father and her mother’s abandonment. Brianna is 49-months old and has been in the system 34 months. Ms. Pauly remarked the judge ordered termination on Brianna’s mother’s rights a year ago March, and it is still in progress. She then read her testimony (Exhibit F), which reiterated her concern about the length of the adoption process and her proposed changes to A.B. 158. Ms. Pauly emphasized the importance of funding the proposed new position in the attorney general’s office to shorten the time that termination cases are on the docket.

Jeff Pauly, Foster Parent, remarked he is Peggy Pauly’s husband and the pastor of a small church in Yerington, as well as the Chaplain at the Lyon County Jail. He said the reason they brought Heather and Brianna with them was to emphasize they are still in the state system and therefore, are the Legislature’s children. He asserted the formative years, the first few years of a child’s life, are important, and children often go for years without parents. Mr. Pauly commented he has talked to prisoners, for the most part fathers, who have abandoned their children. He said some care and want to correct the situation, but most do not. Mr. Pauly maintained it is a rarity for a father to be involved in the lives of the foster children his wife and he have had in their home. That is why the Paulys believe it is important for the time element of the adoption process be shortened. Mr. Pauly stressed that A.B. 158 will give children a chance to acquire parents who will love and care for them.

Ranee Diehl, Former Prospective Adoptive Parent, testified that her husband and she tried to adopt a girl who was in the system for 7 years and in 13 foster homes. She said the girl is a bright and loving child who just wanted a home. Ms. Diehl asserted A.B. 158 is an important bill because it will reform the weak areas of Nevada’s adoption laws. She said it calls for a family search to be done in the first year. Ms. Diehl stated if this bill had been in place when she tried to adopt the little girl, it would have saved the Diehls and the little girl who was lost in the system, a lot of grief. She urged passage of A.B. 158.

Susan Porter, Foster Parent, remarked she is a common citizen who cares for foster children, and she was at the hearing to support A.B. 158. She stated as a foster parent, she can provide insight into the need to update the present adoption and foster care laws. Ms. Porter indicated the original A.B. 158 came from people’s experience as foster parents. She stated their main goal was to move foster children out of the foster care system as quickly as possible. Ms. Porter commented they requested things their experience showed would improve foster care and the adoption of foster children. Some of those things include: 1) siblings be kept together, if possible; 2) a relative search be completed within the first year of placement; 3) termination of parental rights take place within 6 months after judgement; 4) a board be appointed to oversee the movement of foster children within the system; and 5) representation be provided in the courtroom for all foster children.

Ada E. Roelke, Court Appointed Special Advocate, testified she worked as a licensed clinical social worker for 9 years in San Diego County, California, in child protective services. She worked with hundreds of children and families and saw what happens when children slip through the cracks. Ms. Roelke commented San Diego is a huge city of 7 million population, very different from the rural areas of Nevada, which are unique and have different needs. She advised since retiring, she has been a CASA, and has been involved in the cases of five children. Ms. Roelke indicated one case is closed, and the children are back in their homes and doing well. Two of the children are currently in adoptive placements, which was a good solution for them. However, it took much too long, according to Ms. Roelke. She told of a 13-year-old girl who has had 20 placements in 13 years and is now labeled schizophrenic. Ms. Roelke pointed out there is no way of knowing how children would have turned out had they been placed early in a loving home, but she does see many emotionally unbalanced people who were shuffled around in the foster care/adoption system for years. She stressed the importance of putting the children’s interests first.

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8, stated one of the things the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary can be proud of this session is their work on behalf of children. She offered her support of A.B. 158 as one of the other pieces of the puzzle in helping children who are vulnerable in this state. Assemblywoman Buckley indicated she served on the subcommittee that worked 5 or 6 hours trying to piece together what is required by the new federal legislation, which looks to establish permanency quicker on behalf of children. Assemblywoman Buckley offered the Assembly Committee on Judiciary’s support in working with the Senate Committee on Judiciary in this important legislation.

Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, stated her organization is also in support of A.B. 158, which has many important aspects. She asserted it has made giant leaps in terms of speeding up permanent placements, the emphasis on sibling placement, and the development of stability for many of these children. Ms. Lusk mentioned they still have a concern regarding the role of the child protective services (CPS) agency versus the courts in cases where the effort to preserve and unify the family is being shortened. She pointed out that in section 18, subsection 2 of the bill, the CPS agency can proceed with the adoption plan concurrently with the reunification effort with parents. Ms. Lusk remarked that is all right, but her concern is with the language that states the court or the agency determines when efforts with the parents are not consistent with the plan for permanent placement. Then further on in subsection 2 where the agency proceeds to finalize the action plan for the adoption. Ms. Lusk pointed out, as noted by the committee in earlier discussions, these reasonable efforts with the parent are not required unless the parent is showing continued interest. She indicated there is a whole laundry list of conditions under which reasonable efforts are not required. However, Ms. Lusk stated, in the few remaining cases where the parent is showing a continued interest, these reasonable efforts are required. Since the agency can proceed with the plan to place for adoption even though the parent still wants the child, Ms. Lusk is of the opinion the agency could develop a commitment to a specific course. Ms. Lusk opined that in these few cases the court is needed to provide a check and balance in this final decision. To accomplish that, Ms. Lusk recommended a deletion in section 18, subsection 2, beginning with the word "or" and continuing through "services." The sentence would then read, "If the court determines that continuation of the reasonable efforts required by subsection 1 is inconsistent . . . ." Ms. Lusk concluded by stating there is still enough time for changes to be made to the bill and be passed by both houses, and urged the committee to amend the bill in a way that will best serve the needs of children.

May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services, mentioned, regarding the issue of termination of parental rights, if there is a relative such as a grandparent or other viable relative, her agency would probably request that relative seek permanent guardianship so that the parents’ rights would not necessarily be terminated. If a parent was imprisoned for a period of time, the children could be with relatives, so there should not be a fear parental rights would be terminated if there were viable alternatives. Ms. Shelton said the key is permanent placement.

Michael J. Capello, Lobbyist, Division Director, Washoe County Department of Social Services, echoed Ms. Shelton’s statements, and added his division’s commitment to passage and implementation of this legislation. He concluded by saying the division is looking forward to working with the court and the DCFS as they try to make earlier plans for children and permanently place them as soon as possible.

Marie Burgess, Northern Region Adoption Supervisor, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources, advised her division has recently taken on Lyon County and now serves five counties. She offered her support for advisory boards in the rural areas. Ms. Burgess remarked there is an advisory committee for the northern region consisting of foster parents, adoptive parents, people within the legal community, and court appointed special advocates. She noted the committee is not made up of division employees only, but of people who can offer insights into less obvious areas. Additionally, Ms. Burgess indicated northern Nevada has an adoption review team, which reviews cases brought before it by case managers when they are seeking termination of parental rights. She pointed out these decisions must then be rubber-stamped by the court before they can proceed. In conclusion, Ms. Burgess said she wanted to let the committee know the advisory committee does work.

Chairman James stated, on behalf of the committee, it is the legislators’ job to deliberate on legislation that applies to everybody in the state in every different case, not just clear-cut cases where parental rights should obviously be terminated. He expressed concern that the committee’s deliberations in trying to do the right thing to ensure the laws are well-crafted and fair in all circumstances would not be misinterpreted as in some way being insensitive to the predicaments in which many innocent children find themselves.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 158. Vice Chairman Porter then opened the hearing on A.B. 231.

Michael J. Willden, Deputy Administrator, Program and Field Operations, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, read written testimony prepared for Myla C. Florence, Administrator of the Nevada Welfare Division, whose presence at the hearing was delayed (Exhibit H). Mr. Willden explained the three proposed statutory changes to chapter 125 and chapter 126 of NRS. The first change is in section 1 of A.B. 231, and would bring Nevada law into compliance with the recently passed federal welfare reform law. He explained every recipient of public assistance assigns their rights to support, and in certain instances, past-due support, to the Welfare Division as a condition of receiving public assistance. Mr. Willden stated this assignment becomes a debt owed the state by the nonsupporting parent. Current law gives the Welfare Division administrator authority to waive support debt owed to the state in certain circumstances. Further, Mr. Willden remarked this amendment in section 1 will ensure the courts will not waive any past-due child support otherwise owed the state until the Welfare Division has been provided notice and an opportunity to be heard if debt is proposed to be waived.

Mr. Willden advised section 3 of the bill would also bring Nevada into compliance with the national welfare reform law regarding the state’s obligation to provide child support enforcement services. He pointed out currently Nevada law requires the district attorney provide child support services when requested by a parent. However, these services must not be limited only to a parent’s request. If an alleged father, in other words, a person for whom paternity has not yet been established, wishes to initiate an action to establish parentage or paternity and take on responsibility to support a child, or if a child’s guardian wishes to establish parentage and enforce parental responsibility, they must be able to request those services under the welfare reform law.

Finally, Mr. Willden addressed the third change to A.B. 231 in section 4, that clarifies NRS 126.101, to indicate when a court may appoint the Welfare Division as guardian ad litem for a child in a paternity action. Further, the conditions for appointing the Welfare Division as guardian ad litem are when a case is brought by the district attorney and when the interests of the child cannot adequately be represented by the appointment of the district attorney as the guardian ad litem.

Senator Wiener mentioned section 4 refers to the "interests of the child" rather than the "best interest of the child," and inquired why the language is different. Mr. Winne replied it is common nomenclature that in child protective services cases the term "best interest of the child" is used. This is a lower standard where the interests of the child need to be considered when appointing a guardian ad litem, but the standard is not as high as "best interest of the child."

Senator Care referred to section 1 of A.B. 231, which Mr. Willden said brings Nevada in compliance with federal law as opposed to in conformity with federal law. He asked what the federal law mandates. Mr. Willden answered the federal law mandates that recipients who come onto public assistance assign their support rights to the state and that those rights cannot be "dealt away" except by the welfare administrator. He remarked this section would ensure that process occurs. Mr. Willden further stated there is already a statute in NRS 425.440 that gives the welfare administrator the right to waive debt, and this would ensure the courts do not waive any debt unless the Welfare Division has been notified and can attend a hearing to present its side. Senator Care observed the consequence of this would be that the court would be the one to determine whether the debt would be waived based upon the testimony of a representative from the Welfare Division.

Mr. Winne answered, ultimately, chapter 125B of NRS gives the court discretion to waive arrears or do what they need to do. This would ensure that before the court waives any debt, the court is notified there is debt owed the Welfare Division, and the Welfare Division is given the opportunity to be heard. Senator Care inquired whether the Welfare Division currently routinely waives debt or if it is a contentious process. Mr. Willden replied typically the Welfare Division does not waive debt, and he is unsure of the number of times the court is involved in reducing or waiving debt. Mr. Winne advised, in his experience, he has not yet seen a court waive arrears they have knowledge of that are owed to the Welfare Division unless the Welfare Division concurs in that.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Vice Chairman Porter closed the hearing on A.B. 231. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 617.

Madelyn Shipman, Lobbyist, Assistant District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, testified A.B. 617 was brought on behalf of the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association. She distributed a copy of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case (Exhibit I) and a brief summary of the bill (Exhibit J). Ms. Shipman stated the main parts of the bill are in section 1 and section 3, but before getting into those sections, she wanted to make several points. First, this criminal nonsupport proposal, which is replacing the existing criminal nonsupport law, is but one tool in a huge toolbox in pushing forward certain remedies to collect child support. Ms. Shipman asserted this is not an option that is used regularly, but one that is used only when there is no other possible way of getting the attention of the noncustodial parent. Secondly, this is not like any other criminal action, because before any action could be brought on this particular legislation, there would already have been a court order setting forth the child support obligations. Finally, the criminal process and a hearing in criminal court should not ever be considered a forum to re-litigate the child support obligation. Ms. Shipman mentioned there are mechanisms available to obtain modifications. She pointed out anyone can go into any court and obtain paperwork, at no cost, to obtain a modification to child support.

Ms. Shipman explained section 1 sets up an affirmative defense of the inability to pay and what the nondefenses are. Section 3 incorporates the continuing discovery rules that are contained in chapter 174 of NRS. Ms. Shipman also mentioned language added in subsection 2 of section 1 to put the burden on the prosecution to serve, with the charging papers on the defendant, a notice of the procedural requirements if the defendant wishes to assert an affirmative defense. Ms. Shipman maintained the important thing A.B. 617 does is to guarantee, in almost every case, that the first prosecution will be a misdemeanor. She noted it would only be a second or subsequent offense, or an arrearage in excess of $5,000, that would elevate it to a felony. Ms. Shipman introduced Joan Cartlidge, the criminal attorney in Ms. Shipman’s office who has been setting forth, under the current law, some of these cases. Additionally, she researched the Utah law and requested the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association sponsor A.B. 617.

Joan Cartlidge, Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, stated she had nothing further to add to Ms. Shipman’s testimony but would be happy to answer questions from the committee.

Senator Care referred to the second offense in section 3 where it becomes a felony and pointed out, in the case of a person who sometimes pays child support or only pays half the amount owed and is convicted of a felony, if incarcerated, he would be unable to pay any amount of child support. Ms. Shipman replied her office has had two felony convictions, and the first opportunity is always probation, where there is a suspended sentence for the purpose of keeping the person at work to enable him to meet his obligation. Further, she said the prosecutorial discretion would be exercised on a case basis. Ms. Shipman added she doubted they would exercise their discretion to go for a felony on someone who was actually paying some money.

Gemma Greene, Lobbyist, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, stated her association supports A.B. 617.

Philene O’Keefe, Concerned Citizen, submitted her written testimony (Exhibit K) and remarked she is in favor of A.B. 617, because her ex-husband is a nonsupporting parent. However, Ms. O’Keefe expressed concern regarding some of the language being repealed in NRS 201.025 that requires the prosecuting attorney to take action to apprehend and prosecute a nonsupporting and deserting parent. Ms. O’Keefe stated she had researched the change by calling the local district attorney’s offices to find out why that section was being repealed. She advised she was told that even if a statute tells the district attorney’s office to take action, it has prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not it wants to prosecute a case. That response led Ms. O’Keefe to question what constitutes prosecutorial discretion and when it can become prosecutorial discrimination. She also asked, in child support cases in particular, what grounds would be used by a prosecutor to prosecute a case.

While researching this topic, Ms. O’Keefe stated she read in an article titled "Where’s Dad?" in the December 1998 issue of Government Executive, every year about 80 percent of child support responsibilities on record at government agencies go unpaid. She asserted while the big-ticket cases get most of the attention, cases involving just a few hundred dollars are equally troubling to children in need. Ms. O’Keefe pointed out that in Nevada if a person steals an item that has a value of $250 or more, but less than $5,000, that person is guilty of a Category C felony. If its value is more than $2,500, it is a Category B felony. However, in order for a nonsupporting parent to be guilty of a Category C felony, he or she must willfully deny payment for 12 consecutive months or the arrears must be greater than $5,000, and that is providing the district attorney determines the case should be prosecuted. Ms. O’Keefe emphasized that as a society we are telling our children that material things are more important, that we will prosecute a person for stealing something that is worth $250, but will not prosecute a person who is not paying and helping to support his or her child. In conclusion, Ms. O’Keefe stated she is in support of A.B. 617, but requested the Legislature address the issue of enforcement of child support orders and review how district attorneys are enforcing those orders next session.

John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, remarked he signed in as opposed to A.B. 617, but not because he is opposed to the concept of people paying their just requirements for child support. However, according to Mr. Morrow, the way the bill is drafted raises serious problems, and as far as section 1, there is a constitutional dimension regarding the Nevada Supreme Court. He said first of all, section 1 establishes an affirmative defense. It allows a person to claim they do not have an ability to pay the child support that has been ordered due to whatever circumstances there may be. He continued, once that is given to a person by this bill, it is taken away by the statement that if the person is willfully unemployed or underemployed, they cannot assert the defense. Mr. Morrow stated he does not know where, in the procedural aspect of running a lawsuit, this would be done. He maintained it is unclear.

Mr. Morrow mentioned the case of Barone v. State in which Barone asserted self-defense as his defense, and the trial court denied him an instruction that read, "If evidence of self-defense is present, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense." Mr. Morrow asserted the trial court rejected that particular instruction, and the Nevada Supreme Court said, "No, you cannot do that." Once this individual raised an affirmative defense, it then became the burden of the prosecution to disprove that defense by a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Continuing, Mr. Morrow remarked, commenting on that, the court said requiring Barone to prove he acted in self-defense would violate his right to due process by shifting the burden to the defendant of disproving an element of the charged defense. Chairman James clarified that the burden under an affirmative defense is not a burden of proof, but a burden of going forward. Mr. Morrow replied it is a burden of bringing forth evidence to support the affirmative defense. At the point that is done, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to disprove that, and by the Barone case, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr. Morrow referred to his proposed amendment to A.B. 617 (Exhibit L), and noted his proposed change to section 1 is contained in the bold, capitalized, and underlined words in section 1 of Exhibit L. Another concern of Mr. Morrow is in section 3 of the bill where it talks about making subsequent offenses of nonpayment of child support felonies. He remarked the people his office deals with are at the lower end of the income spectrum, and are required to pay the minimum amount of $100 per month in child support. Mr. Morrow stated the provision contained in section 3, subsection 2, paragraph (a), would allow a basically indigent person to be prosecuted for a $200 felony, if he misses two payments. He asserted there are potential abuses to the point that if an office does not like a particular individual, it can throw him into jail for a felony. Mr. Morrow favors the existing statute where a time frame is used, and so many missed payments is a misdemeanor, a gross misdemeanor, or a felony. He noted it normally takes approximately 1 year to reach the felony level.

Ms. Cartlidge briefly commented on the issues raised by Mr. Morrow. First of all, regarding the time frames, the proposed bill eliminates the time frames due to the fact there are new enforcement mechanisms that allow the district attorney’s office to find out where people are working, Internal Revenue Service intercepts and so forth. She said those mechanisms enable payments to be collected sporadically, and that distorts the time frames for criminal prosecution. Regarding section 1 and the affirmative defense, Ms. Cartlidge commented what Mr. Morrow is proposing is basically no guidelines for the affirmative defense. She stated Mr. Morrow’s amendments would allow the re-litigation of previous court orders that were entered in the child support court. Chairman James noted this would be a criminal proceeding in which a person absolutely has the right to re-litigate an issue in a criminal proceeding that was previously litigated in a civil proceeding. Ms. Cartlidge pointed out it would be res judicata. Chairman James disagreed; saying res judicata does not apply when the standards of proof are different. Mr. Morrow stated res judicata applies to the same issue in the same case. Chairman James remarked res judicata is a judgment. He said if they were taking about the same issue, it would be collateral estoppel. Chairman James continued, explaining that collateral estoppel says if a specific issue was litigated in a prior case, the litigant would be collaterally estopped from re-litigating that issue in a subsequent case. He said a rule learned in the first year of law school is if the standard of proof was a preponderance in the first case, it is absolutely not res judicata or collateral estoppel if the standard of proof in the second case is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ms. Shipman stated regarding the res judicata discussion, the idea was that they were not re-litigating an issue of whether the amount of support was correct. The criminal action would be brought for failure to pay. Therefore, it would be a failure to pay under an order that has been established. Whether the order was the right amount or not is not being re-litigated in the criminal action. Further, Ms. Shipman asserted the defense is inability to pay. She agreed there is perhaps a problem with the word "claiming." Ms. Shipman explained this was intended to provide the jury instructions, and it says it is not a defense. Chairman James asked whose burden it is to show the defendant’s inability to pay is self-induced. Ms. Shipman stated it needs to be a statement of policy from this legislation in order for it to be a jury instruction. Chairman James noted the way the bill is written, the defendant will merely have to show his empty checkbook to prove he is unable to pay. It would then go back to the prosecution, who would say he has an empty checkbook because he bought his cousin a $50,000 boat, and was working at McDonalds with an engineering degree. Chairman James added that would have to be shown, like every other element of the prosecution’s case, beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserted the statute needs to be written the way in which Mr. Morrow is suggesting.

Chairman James requested the attorneys get together and draft better language for the defense portion of the bill.

There being no further testimony on the bill, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 617. He then opened the hearing on A.B. 644.

Mr. Willden read testimony prepared for Myla C. Florence, Administrator, State Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, whose presence at the hearing was delayed (Exhibit M). He noted the division requested A.B. 644 to make three statutory changes to chapter 31A of NRS. Mr. Willden explained the changes are needed to promote recovery of child support dollars and pertain to Nevada’s Child Support Enforcement Program, which is administered by the Welfare Division in conjunction with the county district attorneys.

Continuing, Mr. Willden stated sections 1, 2, and 8 of the bill propose changing the method of mailing the notice to withhold income and enroll the child in the health insurance plan to employers from "certified" mail to "first-class" mail. The two purposes of the change in mailing method are: 1) to reduce postal costs and streamline mailing of the notices; and 2) most employers comply with the notices without the need to ensure receipt by using certified mail. He added if they find the employers are not complying with the first-class mail method, Child Support Enforcement Program staff will send the second notice by certified mail before pursuing other noncompliance remedies provided in law. The second change explained by Mr. Willden deals with sections 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 of A.B. 644, all dealing with NRS 31A.340 which is proposed to be deleted as unnecessary in the enforcement and collection of child support.

Finally, Mr. Willden commented the third change deals again with wage withholding, the collection of child support, and in the child support budget, and would create the "State Distribution Unit." He advised the National Welfare Reform Law requires there be a single child support collection and distribution point in the state. Section 5 would clean up the law to make reference to an enforcing authority. Additionally it would delete the reference to only people receiving welfare payments. The statute requires that all income withholding orders, whether or not the custodian is receiving welfare payments, be made to the central collection and distribution point. In Nevada, Mr. Willden advised the single location for the child support program will be the State Disbursement Unit (SDU). The state’s SDU will be operated jointly by the Clark County District Attorney’s Office and the state Welfare Division. He said existing staff will be utilized, employed by Clark County, and a new project manager being hired through the Welfare Division Child Support Program to staff the SDU. It should be operational in late fall 1999, and by spring 2000, all child support payments will need to go through the SDU and will have a 2-day turnaround requirement. In conclusion, Mr. Willden remarked this bill was provided to the county district attorney’s office, which supports the bill.

Senator Care asked the amount of the statutory fine in the case of the employer who does not provide the information, does not withhold the income, or knowingly misrepresents information. Mr. Willden deferred to the lawyers present, saying he was not certain. Senator Care explained when a writ of execution or a writ of garnishment is issued, and an employer lies when answering the interrogatories, it is his understanding the person who misrepresents can be held liable for the full amount of the judgement being executed. Senator Care suggested perhaps the amount could be doubled or tripled. Mr. Willden answered the division’s only concern with A.B. 644 was to change the mailing method and not the fines or penalties. He added it was simply an administrative process to avoid paying the $3 per certified mailing, especially since they receive substantial compliance from the employers.

Senator Wiener inquired what the approximate savings would be if this bill passes. Mr. Willden replied the savings, primarily through the district attorney’s budgets, would be somewhere between $135,000 and $150,000 per year in the cost difference between certified and first-class mail.

Myla C. Florence, Administrator, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources, responded to Senator Care’s question by reiterating that, like Mr. Willden mentioned, this bill only addresses the mail issue. She stated the fine is up to $1,000.

There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman James adjourned the meeting at 12:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jo Greenslate,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: