MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-First Session

April 11, 2001

 

 

The Subcommittee on Judiciarywas called to order at 4:29 p.m. on Wednesday, April 11, 2001.  Chairwoman Kathy McClain presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.  The meeting was video-conferenced to Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, 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.

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Ms.   Kathy McClain, Chairwoman

Mr.   Bernie Anderson

Mr.   John Carpenter

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Michelle L. Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst

Leslie K. Hamner, Committee Counsel

Sandra Albrecht-Johnson, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources

Steve Hiltz, Lead Attorney, Children’s Attorney’s Project, Clark County Legal Services

Nancy Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division

Liliana Loftman, Attorney, Children’s Attorney’s Project, Clark County Legal Services

Ed Irvin, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division

 

Assembly Bill 248:  Requires adoption of regulations governing provision of certain information to foster or adoptive parents and revises certain provisions governing procedures for protection of children from abuse and neglect. (BDR 38-356)

 

Chairwoman McClain opened the meeting and summarized that the purpose for the subcommittee meeting was to follow-up on the progress of the proposed amendments to A.B. 248 that were discussed in the previous subcommittee meeting held on Wednesday, April 4, 2001.

 

Mr. Stephen A. Shaw, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), Department of Human Resources, testified with regard to the proposed amendments to A.B. 248.  He opined that the proposed amendments from the Children’s Attorney’s Project (CAP) (Exhibit C) would not be appropriately placed in A.B. 248.  He described that the proposed amendments from the CAP, that were submitted to the subcommittee in the meeting on April 4, 2001, were substantive changes that would affect the funding of the child welfare system.  He suggested the proposed amendments could be made through the exempt bill, A.B. 343, which was the bill to integrate the state and local child welfare systems.  He recommended that a committee be appointed to review the concerns of the CAP, over the interim, to include the representation of the child throughout the process, and make the necessary changes throughout the chapters of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).  He stated that there simply was not enough time to address all their concerns before the deadline arrived to pass bills through the first house.  He stressed the necessity for the passage of A.B. 248, to keep the state in compliance with the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), in order for the state to receive federal funding for the child welfare system.

 

Mr. Anderson explained that the deadline for all bills, with the exception of the exempted bills in the committee on Ways and Means, required them to leave committees through action by midnight, Monday, April 16, 2001.  The exempt bills included bills that were to be considered that carried a fiscal note.  Mr. Anderson inquired if A.B. 248 would have a fiscal note.  Mr. Shaw clarified that the bill, without amendments, did not carry a fiscal note.  He implored the subcommittee to recommend the passage of A.B. 248.

 

Chairwoman McClain explained that the proposed amendments from the CAP (Exhibit C), had been reduced to one page from three pages.  She opined that they were simple changes that would not affect funding, to her knowledge.  She then called for the representatives from the CAP to testify with regard to their proposed amendments.

 

Mr. Steve Hiltz, Lead Attorney, Children’s Attorney’s Project (CAP), Clark County Legal Services, stated that upon review of the changes they proposed for A.B. 248, they discovered that they actually wanted even more changes to be made to the NRS Chapter 432B.  He explained that they reduced their proposed amendment to address one main concern, which was to declare that the child was a legal party.  He recommended that more time be allotted to address the concerns that such an amendment might cause confusion throughout the chapter.  He opined the confusion could be addressed by the substitution of the word “person” for “party,” or “persons responsible for the child’s welfare,” to clarify which person was being discussed.

 

Chairwoman McClain inquired if the addition of “the child is a party,” in NRS Chapter 432B, would accomplish the goal to have the child’s input be heard throughout the process.  Ms. Nancy Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, responded that there were no objections to the child becoming a party to the proceedings.  She stated that they had no opinion on the matter.  She cited that the blanket statement would affect portions of the bill that would make the child an adversarial party.  She explained that NRS Chapter 432B was structured in a specific way so that the revision of the entire chapter would be necessary, and that the revisions of the chapter would need to receive input from all the parties involved.  She recommended that the committee form a task force to comprehensively review NRS Chapter 432B, to make the necessary revisions.

 

Mr. Anderson inquired what the difficulties were with including the phrase “the child is a party,” in the bill, and why the word “party” should not be continued throughout the bill, if the intent was to make the child a “party.”  Mr. Hiltz responded that “party” was not defined in NRS Chapter 432B.  Mr. Anderson explained the instances where the word party occurred throughout NRS Chapter 432B.  He restated his question about why the word “party” should not be continued throughout NRS Chapter 432B.  Ms. Liliana Loftman, attorney, Children’s Attorney’s Project (CAP), Clark County Legal Services, answered that there was no reason to change the word “party” throughout NRS Chapter 432B.  She noted there were instances in the chapter where the inclusion of the child as a legal party was not the intention of the drafter, however, she offered alternative language to use in those instances.

 

Mr. Ed Irvin, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, informed the committee of the importance to the legal community of the definition of words in the statutes.  He indicated that there were several occasions where he had been required to manipulate the definitions in court to serve in the best interest of the child.  He cited that the assignment to a person of the word “party” automatically entitled that person to certain rights.  He noted the inclusion of the child as a party in NRS Chapter 432B would result in an enormous fiscal and procedural impact on the system.  He described that it would require the assignment of an attorney to the child, and for that attorney to be present at every hearing.  He indicated it would incur huge costs to the state.  Mr. Irvin explained that there were protections and representation available for the child when necessary.  He did not understand the need to define the child as a legal party.  He explained the change would directly affect the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) through requiring added expenses and procedures.  He opined the goal for children to be heard and listened to could be included in the proposed amendments from the DCFS (Exhibit D), through adding a new subsection to the last proposed amendment in Exhibit D, under “reasonable efforts,” with the language “must include consideration of input from the child, if any.”  He mentioned the language would be consistent with the intent of the chapter, which he interpreted to be that the children were listened to, but not necessarily followed.

 

Mr. Hiltz agreed with the suggestion to include the language that the children should have input.  However, he objected to the concept that the inclusion of the child as a party would have a large impact on the chapter, as described.  He cited that 18 states in the United States, specifically designated children as parties in proceedings as described in NRS 432B.  He opined that the objection to the change of meaning in NRS 432B.530 was unfounded.  He stated that a child would not cross-examine a witness or agency reports, but that the child’s attorney, if present, should have the right to cross-examine.

 

Chairwoman McClain inquired if the recommended language, “must include consideration of input from the child, if any,” would accomplish the goals of the CAP.  Mr. Hiltz responded that it would not.  He stated that the goal of the Children’s Attorney’s Project was to give the child’s attorney the same rights as every other attorney in the proceedings.  He described that without statutory language, the rights of the children’s attorneys were decided by the judges hearing the proceedings, the social workers and their supervisors, and would vary dependent upon their personalities.  He asserted that the rights of the children’s attorney needed to be codified.

 

Mr. Anderson pointed out that the recommendation from the DCFS to work with the CAP and a committee through the interim would create legislation for the next session that would address the concerns expressed.  He noted the majority of the changes desired would have the opportunity to be made through the future legislation.  He stressed the importance to the Governor’s budget, that A.B. 248 pass before the deadline in order to keep the state in compliance with the ASFA in order to receive federal funding.  He asked Mr. Hiltz if he would object to the passage of the bill without the proposed amendments, Exhibit C, with the intent to address the concerns during the interim.  Mr. Hiltz stated that he did not object to the passage of the bill, but that the CAP strongly opined that “now is the time to at least recognize children as parties.”  He indicated the changes did not have to be included under A.B. 248, but that they should be included in some piece of legislation this session.  He agreed the subject deserved further attention during the interim, and that it was important to include all parties’ input in the formation of the future legislation.

 

Chairwoman McClain inquired if the inclusion of the language, “must include consideration of input from the child, if any,” would be sufficient, with the intent that the issues would be further addressed over the interim, to be legislated in the next session.

 

Mr. Carpenter opined that the several changes that were made over the last few sessions greatly improved the conditions for the children of the state.  Because of the disagreements with regard to the proposed amendments to A.B. 248 (Exhibit C), he recommended that the issues be addressed through a committee or task force over the interim, which would include all parties involved.  He stated the passage of A.B. 248 was too important to hold until a consensus would be reached between the DCFS and the CAP.

 

Chairwoman McClain clarified that all parties accepted the proposed amendments from the DCFS (Exhibit D).  She requested a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 248, to include the proposed amendments from the DCFS, Exhibit D.  Ms. Angres clarified that there were only two changes to Exhibit D since the subcommittee meeting on Wednesday, April 4, 2001.  She noted that one of the changes added the citation of NRS 127.410 after the citation of NRS 127.152 on page three of Exhibit D.  She also indicated that there was a new subsection “b,” which was the inclusion of the language “must include consideration of input from the child, if any.”

 

assemblyman anderson moved to recommend the action of amend and do pass a.b. 248 to the FULL committee.

 

assemblyman carpenter seconded the motion.

 

the motion passed unanimously.

 

Chairwoman McClain requested a motion for the Judiciary Committee to request a bill draft in the next session to address NRS 432B.041, to include the rights of a child.

 

assemblyman anderson moved to recommend the drafting of legislation by the assembly judiciary committee to address the rights of a child as a party in the next legislative session.

 

assemblyman Carpenter seconded the motion.

 

the motion passed unanimously.

 

Chairwoman McClain adjourned the meeting at 5:02 p.m.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

Sandra Albrecht-Johnson

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                       

Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, Chairwoman

 

 

DATE: