MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
February 28, 2001
The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:07 a.m., on Wednesday, February 28, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Rebekah Langhoff, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ladeana Gamble, MSW, Manager, Family Mediation Center, Family Court & Services Center, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division
Joyce Gallina, MSW, LSW, Family Specialist, Family Mediation Center, Family Court & Services Center, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division
Ann Price McCarthy, Legislative Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Roll was called and Chairman Anderson determined a quorum was present.
Chairman Anderson announced that it was “job shadow” day and many of the committee members had students from throughout the area shadowing them for the day.
Mr. Brower introduced Patrick Wilson, a senior from Galena High School. Mr. Gustavson introduced Allison Tracy from Hug High School. Mrs. Angle introduced Hillary Bunker, a senior from McQueen High School. Mr. Carpenter introduced Carrie Rowley, a senior from Spring Creek High School in Elko and Rachael Ridgely, a sophomore, and Nynalea Webb, a senior, both from Carson High School. Chairman Anderson introduced Alexis Hill, a senior at Reed High School.
Assembly Bill 141: Imposes liability on state for certain damages caused by foster children. (BDR 38-239)
Chairman Anderson turned to the agenda for the day and advised the committee the primary sponsor of A.B. 141, Speaker Pro Tempore Williams, requested the bill be removed from the agenda. If certain difficulties with the bill could be worked out after a redraft of the legislation, it would be scheduled for a hearing in the future. Chairman Anderson suggested any person who had prepared an exhibit for testimony on A.B. 141 submit their documentation to Speaker Pro Tempore Williams for his consideration.
Assembly Bill 167: Requires certain judicial districts to establish educational seminar for separating parents who are parties in domestic relations matters involving children. (BDR 1-804)
Chairman Anderson noted A.B. 167 required a two-thirds majority vote because it contained a fiscal impact.
Ladeana Gamble, Manager, Family Mediation Center (FMC), Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, told the committee the United States Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which sought ways of creating environments in which decisions could best be made about the well-being of children to ensure they received the emotional and financial support of both parents. Ms. Gamble advised that recommendations contained in that report stated “courts should provide intake and referral services and educational programs to help parents understand court processes and the effect their decisions will have on their lives and the lives of their children.” The Eighth Judicial District Court was interested in developing a seminar that would assist parents in dealing with the emotional impact of divorce on their children. Research was conducted throughout the country on programs for children of divorce and the curriculum used by Families First in Atlanta, Georgia, was selected and the divorce education seminar known as “Transparenting” was implemented by the Eighth Judicial District Court in April of 1994 (Exhibit C). A partnership was formed with two private nonprofit agencies to conduct the seminars with no fiscal impact to the court or the county. The court requested FMC to act as program coordinator for the seminar and further requested seminar providers to prepare monthly statistical reports and program evaluations. Evaluations were reviewed by FMC so that it might deal with any noted concerns. Ms. Gamble provided the committee with a copy of the January 2001 evaluations received from Bridge Counseling Associates (Exhibit D).
Ms. Gamble advised that each parent was charged $30 for the seminar; however, fee waiver applications were created for parents who could not afford to pay the fee. Since 1994 less than one percent of the parents completing the program had requested a fee waiver and the court had not increased the fees for the seminar since its inception because of the financial impact on parents. Fees were charged to cover the cost of a divorce parenting handbook, security at each seminar, light refreshments, a community resource directory prepared by FMC, a reading list of literature on children of divorce and handouts on the protective order program and other resources of the court. Certificates of attendance were received by the participants which were filed with the county clerk and made part of the court file.
Ms. Gamble informed the committee the seminar was 3 hours and 15 minutes in duration, was conducted in both English and Spanish and was taught over 6 times a week including evenings and Saturdays. Ms. Gamble stated feedback from the community had been very positive and the court desired to legislatively legitimize the local court rule that presently existed.
Chairman Anderson noted the program had been a model program in operation in the Eighth Judicial District for seven years and the program now sought legislative sanction.
Mrs. Koivisto requested clarification that the cost for the program was already in place and would not create a new expense. Ms. Gamble confirmed Mrs. Koivisto’s understanding.
Mrs. Angle asked why the bill was presented as an unfunded mandate if there was a cost of $30 to each parent. Chairman Anderson noted that it was not the decision of the witnesses to make the bill an unfunded mandate and Mrs. Angle’s question should be directed to the bill drafters. Mrs. Angle inquired if there were any hidden costs beyond the $30 per parent associated with the program. Ms. Gamble stated there were not any hidden costs and reiterated that parents who could not afford the fee could request a waiver of the fees. Mrs. Angle asked if the cost to be funded was just to cover the fees for those people who requested a waiver. Joyce Gallina, MSW, LSW, Family Specialist, Family Mediation Center, Family Court & Services Center, Eighth Judicial District Court, Family Division, responded by telling the committee that if the parents were not able to pay the fee, the program providers absorbed the cost.
Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Lang for her thoughts on the requirement of a two-thirds majority vote. Ms. Lang explained a two-thirds majority vote was required anytime a new fee was imposed and as A.B. 167 required a fee to be paid by each parent, it would require a two-thirds majority vote. Chairman Anderson noted a fiscal note had been prepared and showed no fiscal impact.
Mr. Carpenter pointed out that at page 1, line 9, A.B. 167 required “that the seminar be successfully completed within 45 days after service of the initial complaint or petition,” and wondered if participants were meeting that requirement. Mr. Carpenter further questioned whether the provision in paragraph 4 which stated “the parties have successfully completed the seminar during the 3-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or petition” was in conflict with the requirement at page 1, line 9. Ladeana Gamble responded that Clark County had mandatory mediation in contested child custody matters and the language at page 1, line 9 was to ensure that families had attended the seminar prior to making their first appearance in court. However, the court heard a significant number of cases which were brought back to the court after a decree of divorce was entered and paragraph 4 provided that families that had already taken the class within a three-year period do not have to take the class again.
Ms. Buckley stated she was familiar with the program and knew it to be very successful and very well run. Parents learned that even though they do not get along, the child comes first. Ms. Buckley felt the program was great.
Ms. McClain asked who currently administered the program. Ms. Gallina responded the court presently contracted with two nonprofit agencies to administer the program and it was anticipated those arrangements would continue.
Ms. McClain thought the program sounded great and wondered why the legislation was limited to Clark County. Ladeana Gamble stated she had spoken to officials in Reno who indicated there was interest in the program but were not able to administer the program at this time due to limited staffing resources.
Chairman Anderson noted it was Clark County’s desire to ensure the program continued and the program could be used as a model for other counties when other counties were financially able to support the program.
Mr. Claborn wondered what effect this program would have on people who came to Nevada to obtain a quick divorce. Ms. Gamble stated the court had established a waiver of attendance that could be granted at the discretion of the judge. Mr. Claborn asked if the program was mandatory when the children involved lived in another jurisdiction. Ms. Gamble advised the program was in existence in 39 states in some form and the judge could require participation in a sister program in another state.
Chairman Anderson confirmed the discretion of the judge would statutorily remain in place pursuant to the language of the bill.
Ann McCarthy, Legislative Representative, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, was also a lawyer in Carson City practicing primarily in the area of family law. Ms. McCarthy stated the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association was in support of A.B. 167 and was disappointed the legislation currently only applied to Clark County. Ms. McCarthy stated that one of the major problems encountered in resolving contested divorce cases was the inability of the parents to see the effect their dispute had on the children.
There were no witnesses present to testify against A.B. 167 and Chairman Anderson closed the hearing.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED DO PASS A.B. 167.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Brower believed the program was a worthy one but was concerned by the two-thirds majority vote requirement due to the mandatory fee for a mandatory seminar. Mr. Brower noted, upon further reflection, he may not support the bill on the floor but indicated his intention to vote in favor of the bill in committee.
Chairman Anderson noted Mr. Brower’s reservation and inquired if there were other committee members who wished to reserve that right. Mr. Gustavson, Mr. Nolan and Mrs. Angle additionally reserved their right not to support the bill on the floor.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE WITHDREW HER SECOND OF THE MOTION.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN MCCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Anderson asked the bill drafter to re-examine the two-thirds vote requirement in light of the testimony presented.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Manendo was directed to present the bill on the floor on behalf of the committee.
Mr. Oceguera introduced his job shadow, Craig Huntington from Valley High School in Las Vegas. Mrs. Koivisto introduced James Fitch, a senior at El Dorado High School. Ms. McClain introduced Natalia Urquidi from Chaparral High School. Mr. Nolan introduced Cody Helbert, Senior Class President from Durango High School. Mr. Manendo introduced Dimitar Brankow from Horizon South High School in Henderson. Ms. Buckley introduced Brandon Schultz, a junior from Clark High School.
Nick Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, provided the committee with three memorandums that responded to questions raised during the presentations from the Department of Prisons, Parole and Probation and the Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G).
Chairman Anderson reminded the committee members of the joint meetings with Senate Judiciary on March 2 and March 12, 2001.
Ms. Buckley indicated it would be helpful to have staff review, analyze and report back on the information provided regarding the prison phone call situation. Chairman Anderson requested Mr. Anthony to review the matter and provide some insight into the information provided.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 9:48 a.m.
Rebekah Langhoff
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: