MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 10, 2001
The Senate Committee on Judiciarywas called to order by Vice Chairman Jon C. Porter, at 8:56 a.m., on Thursday, May 10, 2001, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada and video conferenced from the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, Nevada, Room 4412. 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 Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Maurice Washington, Excused
Senator Dina Titus, Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Ellen Marie Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14
Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District No. 39
Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bradley A. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst
Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Myra A. Sheehan, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Elana L. Hatch, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Family Support Division, Clark County District Attorney’s Office
Todd L. Torvinen, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN)
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association and Washoe County Deputy District Attorney
Ron Pacheco, Concerned Citizen
Brian Hutchins, Concerned Citizen
John K. O’Connor, Lobbyist, Families Battling Injustice
Renee Sponcey, Concerned Citizen, Families Battling Injustice
Veronica Bitto, Concerned Citizen
Melissa Wagner, Concerned Citizen
Lisa Stiller, Concerned Citizen
Greg Weeks, Concerned Citizen
Marshal S. Willick, Concerned Citizen
Knight Allen, Concerned Citizen
Brent Howard, Concerned Citizen
Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General
Nancy Ford Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General
Susan J. Meuschke, Lobbyist, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence
May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens
Vice Chairman Porter called the meeting to order, announcing Chairman James was detained temporarily and began the meeting with the introduction of Assembly Bill (A.B.) 37 addressing child support amounts.
ASSEMBLY BILL 37: Revises provisions governing maximum monthly amount that certain parents may be required to pay for support of their children. (BDR 11-1051)
Myra A. Sheehan, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, spoke first in support of A.B. 37. She stated she wanted the presentation to include statements from Elana L. Hatch of the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, and then Todd Torvinen who also represents the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association.
Elana L. Hatch, Chief Deputy District Attorney, Family Support Division, Clark County District Attorney’s Office, stated she was present to support A.B. 37 and the amendments that accompany it. She said the amendments were produced as an effort of the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, Clark County, Douglas County, Washoe County, and the State of Nevada. Regarding the increase in the cap or “presumptive maximum” for child support, she said it is essential to take care of the children of Nevada. Ms. Hatch said the current $500 cap was set in the 1987 Legislative Session. She said according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the U.S. Department of Labor, it now takes $758 to equal the same buying power $500 had in 1987, explaining inflation requires $758 currently to buy what $500 bought in 1987.
Ms. Hatch addressed the amendments to A.B. 37 referencing a copy of them (Exhibit C) along with a news article written by Clark County Deputy District Attorney Edward Ewert (Exhibit D). She said the article examines percentage orders.
Referring to the amendment handout, Ms. Hatch said lines 4-9 in section 1 have been eliminated (Exhibit C). She explained this removes gross monthly income because it creates two bases for calculation causing confusion, additional litigation, and an inefficient system. Section 1, subsection 1, paragraph (a) is exemplified by a case in Washoe County presented before the Nevada Supreme Court when the noncustodial parent alleged the law did not apply to him because his income came from a trust and was not earned. To avoid this, Ms. Hatch said, the words “of a wage-earning employee” have been removed to clarify “gross monthly income” means the total amount of income each month from any source. Ms. Hatch said Mr. Ewert’s article addressed the formula to determine the amount of child support in the form of the “sum certain” dollar amount.
Ms. Hatch said the “sum certain” amount was preferred because employers are under no obligation to withhold a percentage amount of income; she clarified an employer is not responsible for the calculation. She said several states have returned orders for child support from Nevada stating they will not enforce the child support order. She explained if a percentage is used, the noncustodial parent has to be contacted every month to verify income. Additionally, she said, it is then very difficult to calculate arrearages.
Next, Ms. Hatch explained the addition of the word “presumptive” to the amended A.B. 37. This word enables the child support to be adjusted upward or downward by the court and allows for the law to be fairly applied in the state of Nevada, she noted. She said based on the average monthly wage in Nevada, child support for one child at 18 percent of wages is $458 with a current cap (or maximum) amount of $500. With the maximum cap, a millionaire is required to pay $500, or the same as the average wage earner in Nevada. She said when this legislation went before the Assembly the cap was formulated in graduated steps, then raised to an $800 maximum cap.
Ms. Hatch said there would also be an increase or a decrease each calendar year based on the CPI, which would be determined by the Administrative Office of the Court. She said, number 4, page 3, needs to be eliminated completely as “unworkable,” stating noncustodial parents rarely come forth and ask for their child support amounts to be increased. The other amendment suggested in her document is the addition of the word, “legal” found in number 9(e) of the exhibit (Exhibit C). This change, she explained, is something the court would consider to deviate from the formula.
Ms. Hatch concluded her comments asking the Senate Committee on Judiciary to carefully consider this bill and take care of Nevada’s children.
Senator Care said the original draft of the bill is one page and basically all it did was alter the figure upward from $500 to $785. He said it was a relatively simple bill and asked what happened to the bill between the Assembly and the Senate. Ms. Hatch agreed it was a simple bill in the beginning; she supported it, but said some in the Assembly wanted to change it. Ms. Hatch stated she was not involved in the changes made to A.B. 37 since it was originally drafted.
Ms. Sheehan responded to Senator Care stating she was involved in the history of the bill. She said current statutes require the state bar to evaluate child support obligations every three years. For at least the last two legislative sessions, she continued, attempts have been made to increase child support but they have failed. The state, through the Legislature, she said, had mandated 2001 as the year for the State Bar of Nevada to review the child support formula. She reported it was reviewed. The state bar, she continued, came up with a very simple formula based on the CPI, and recommended the cap amount be raised to $785. Ms. Sheehan said when the recommendation came before the Assembly, “there wasn’t a lot of appetite to kick up the child support cap.” The concern, she explained, was for people in the $33,000 to $50,000 gross income category because they would fall into the 18 percent of their gross income allotted (proposed) to child support payments. This, she said, would represent a huge jump in child support payments for this group. She said it was not her organization’s amendment nor was it a recommendation from anyone who initiated the bill; rather, the Assembly Committee on Judiciary created the graduated cap system. She added everyone was in agreement an increase in child support was in order, as it has not been raised in 13 years. The graduated scale decision made by the Assembly Judiciary Committee was created leaving the cap at $500 for people in the $33,000-$50,000 income range. Ms. Sheehan reiterated these decisions made by the Assembly Judiciary were based on what they thought was fair. She said there was no opposition to the decision because, she said, “Quite frankly, we are desperate to get this cap raised.” She added there is support for the amendments brought before the Senate Committee on Judiciary today, explaining, the objective is finding a system to work for the agencies dealing with hundreds of thousands of child support cases yearly.
Senator Wiener said she noticed the consideration for deviation in child support amount considers the income of both parents. She asked if it is common for the custodial parent to earn more than the non-custodial parent. Ms. Hatch responded, “It’s extremely unusual. We generally see that the noncustodial parent has more income, substantially more income.” She said her figures are computed from 63,000 cases.
Ms. Hatch continued, stating the desired goal initially was to agree on one figure, but the compromise of a graduated scale as designed was accepted. She said her organization is desperate for a change to occur and realizes the amended bill achieves increasing child support to where it should be. She said, “No Nevada child is going to be hurt.” She mentioned the deviation upward or downward is an option for the court when considering each case.
Ms. Sheehan addressed Senator Wiener, stating the law says if a custodial parent is recognized, the process begins with each parent accepting the obligation to support the child(ren) they brought into this world. She stressed it is not the parent’s right to receive child support; rather, it is the child’s right. Ms. Sheehan compared cost of living raises in the workplace to the cost of raising children. She said the custodial parent’s income is considered, and joint custody is becoming more and more prevalent in Nevada; therefore, different child support arrangements have to be considered. Ms. Sheehan explained in joint custody orders, the incomes of both parents are compared and the difference is deducted; currently, the $500 cap applies to the amount of support paid by the parent with greater, often much greater, income. Ms. Sheehan said, “The child has a right to live as closely as possible to the income of their parents regardless if they’re in the care of the mother or the care of the father.”
Senator McGinness said his comment mirrors Senator Care’s, stating this bill started as a one-page document, and now has six pages of amendments. He said there are amendments before him without an agency or submitter identified; he added that when bills pass from one house to the other, most of the changes have been done. With this, he said, we are talking about totally different concepts, such as the presumptive maximum and a change from gross annual to gross monthly income. Senator McGinness asked if these issues had been discussed on the Assembly side and then rejected.
Ms. Hatch said several different agencies added amendments, but pointed out those submitted by her organization are supported by the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, Clark County, Washoe County, Douglas County, and the State of Nevada (Exhibit C). She said basically the amendments make changes already discussed and eliminate superfluous language. Ms. Hatch said testimony in the Assembly was in regard to a far different bill than what is here in the Senate Committee on Judiciary today. The original bill, she explained, was very minimal; it simply asked the Assembly to raise the maximum amount to $785. Subsequent changes were made, she said, without our input or knowledge.
Continuing Ms. Hatch said when the changes to A.B. 37 were received, “We felt duty-bound to the children of Nevada to give what needed to be given.” She said the objective was to secure an increase in child support; therefore, she said, our information was as basic and simple as possible. Two sections of the proposed legislation were eliminated, language was simplified, and “sum certain dollar,” “presumptive,” “rounded dollar,” “Administrative Office of the Court,” and “legal” were added to the amendments. She said, “In the interest of justice, we could not not do that. It was something that was required.”
Senator Care said he understood today’s objective is to save the bill, because there has not been a change in 14 years. He continued, saying the bill does not address, and should not address, the cases in which a parent has children from a previous marriage. He said parents would always disagree on the amount of gross monthly income, using an example of a Christmas bonus, which, by request, is not paid until January in order to avoid paying child support. But, he continued, those issues are left to the court and what we are doing today is simply adjusting the figures to match the 50 percent inflation over the last 14 years.
Ms. Hatch said, “That is exactly correct.” She concurred with Senator Care regarding the court’s discretion to deviate and adjust according to individual circumstances.
Senator Porter said he agreed with the concept of a child’s right to receive support, but said the bigger issue is, “there are no winners.” He explained he has heard testimony for years in this committee about the trauma of families who go before a family court and learn that nobody wins. He said he is aware money paid for child support often does not go towards the child’s needs, recognizing it as a problem beyond the legislative scope. He said his concern is solutions to problems often are solved by regularly suggesting judges have more discretion in their decisions; he said it appears a portion of A.B. 37 may take away some of the judge’s discretion. Senator Porter asked Ms. Hatch to comment.
Ms. Hatch said the bill does not take away the discretion of the court, stating there already was a $500 cap and it is being increased in increments. She explained the word “presumptive” gives the court the option of looking at all the factors for deviation. She said it was embarrassing to say but in all the years she has been working with child support issues, she could count on one hand the number of times she succeeded in getting a deviation in the amount of child support changed upwardly. Senator Porter remarked, “It is a bad commentary for our judicial system.” Ms. Hatch responded, “It is an unfortunate circumstance and if this bill isn’t adopted, nothing is going to change.” She said the “presumptive maximum” is what will turn kids’ lives around a bit.
Ms. Sheehan said Ms. Hatch had been working in this area for 21 years and she, Ms. Sheehan, has been in this field for 11 years and commented one hand’s worth of fingers would be adequate for the count of how many deviations upward they have both had in their combined experience. Judges, she said, do not deviate up; they deviate down.
Senator Porter then said there is a clear advantage to having proper legal representation. He suggested the ability of the non-custodial parent to pay for a better attorney gets the child support reduced before a judge. Ms. Hatch said she has seen some situations in which there is a parent without representation resulting in severely skewed settlements as well as minimal child support payments from those who earn in excess of $250,000 per year. “We trust the court to make the right decisions and to that end, this cap adjustment giving a presumptive maximum will be of great assistance,” she said.
Todd L. Torvinen, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said he wanted to address a technical issue and a theoretical issue with regard to raising the cap. He said Marshal Willick will be testifying about the cap and he (Mr. Torvinen) wants to address the topic proactively. First, he said, the technical issue involves section 1, paragraph 3 of A.B. 37, indicating December 15 is the day the CPI statistics are calculated to go into effect on January 1.
Senator Porter interrupted to say time is short and if this is a logistical problem, there is not time to give this bill adequate consideration. Mr. Torvinen then requested changing the dates the bill would go into effect from January 1 to July 1. He said the Administrative Office of the Courts concurred, stating the child support adjustments have to be posted and 6 months is a reasonable and realistic time to accomplish the changes going into effect. This, he said, is a technical correction that makes the bill work. Mr. Torvinen submitted a document with the suggested revisions (Exhibit E).
Senator Care then questioned whether the CPI could be used as a basis for seeking an increase in child support or the modification of a decree. Mr. Torvinen said modifications are considered with changed circumstances. He said the CPI creeps up very slowly, which is how the current situation happened, and, practically speaking, it really does not happen. Senator Care explained he is leery of creating a bureaucratic duty, and suggested a computer program could be devised to calculate annual cost of living increases similar to what the Social Security Administration does.
Ms. Hatch interjected there is a statutory section, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 425.450, dealing with cases handled through family support offices, providing an administrative procedure for an adjustment based on cost of living. She said it is presumed the CPI is used to calculate the cost of living increase and the administrative procedure for these cases is cost-efficient. She said the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is available online; therefore, it should be a routine matter for the Administrative Office of the Court to make the determination annually.
Senator Porter asked, regarding the list of factors to be considered in adjusting the amount of child support (section 2, paragraph 9 of A.B. 37), if there should be additional things considered, citing, for example, costs of health insurance or auto insurance, both of which have changed substantially in the last 13 years.
Ms. Hatch said when the bill was created 13 years ago a formula was devised settling on 18 percent of the noncustodial parent’s gross yearly income; it was determined as enough to raise a child. Then, she said, a cap was added to the formula, and she really did not understand how all of this was figured. She continued, this bill and the entire statute could be reworked to balance factors, as was done in California. In California, she said, the totality of the circumstances of the parties involved is considered. Ms. Hatch said she thought it was a good idea, but added it has never been brought before this Legislature. She lamented this current, rather basic bill is facing opposition. She concluded her comments with, “We’re having a hard time getting this through this Legislature . . . We’re begging for a little piece here.”
Vice Chairman Porter asked Ms. Hatch to understand the constraints involved, stating the bill was introduced in the Assembly on January 25 and now, on May 10, in the Senate, major changes are proposed when an hour is all the time available for discussion. He explained A.B. 37 was in the Assembly for over three months and now, to do fairness to the bill, and to discuss important questions regarding it, he did not feel it could be limited to simply the amount of the support payments.
Mr. Torvinen reported he had a phone conversation with Marshal Willick, a divorce lawyer in Las Vegas, whom, he says, supports A.B. 37 but has a problem with the regressivity of the different income-rate levels where the cap is applied. Mr. Torvinen said Mr. Willick questioned whether Nevada children would benefit by increasing the cap based on income levels. Mr. Willick’s concern, he said, was the variable cap levels suggested will limit his ability to deviate from the cap in court, and will, effectively, lower child support awards for people at upper income levels. Mr. Torvinen said he disagreed with Mr. Willick. He concurred with Ms. Hatch and Ms. Sheehan who testified, based on experience, judges rarely, if ever, deviate and adjust child support amounts upward. Mr. Torvinen said the graduated caps, depending on income levels, would benefit more children in Nevada.
Ms. Sheehan echoed Mr. Torvinen’s sentiment and voiced disagreement with Mr. Willick’s concern regarding regressivity of the amendments and an increase based on graduated income levels. She said this is a step forward, reminding the committee this is a “presumptive cap for each level.” Ms. Sheehan described what the Assembly did as “fair”; she described their efforts as arduous, and they were committed to passing an equitable bill that would raise the cap. No discretion was taken from the judges, she added. She said the people she represents quite frankly do not fit into the $175,000 income level, reiterating her disagreement with Mr. Willick.
Vice Chairman Porter commented if deviations by judges can be counted by using one hand, and there are over 63,000 cases, then something is wrong, both statistically and morally.
Ms. Hatch echoed the position taken by Ms. Sheehan and Mr. Torvinen. She said, “The majority of children in Nevada will be helped by the presumptive maximum cap.”
Vice Chairman Porter asked for other testimony on A.B. 37, reminding those present of a time constraint and cautioning about redundant information.
Janet L. Gilbert, Lobbyist, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada (PLAN), said she supports A.B. 37 strongly. She acknowledged the problems of having only a 120-day Session, but urged the committee to take time on a bill benefiting so many children. She expressed shock about the rare occasions in which a judge deviates from the cap, adding, however, this is not the vehicle to modify judges’ discretions. Ms. Gilbert stated, the word “presumptive” would give judges more leeway in their decisions regarding child support and, additionally, convince judges they need to change their usual practice in this area.
Ms. Gilbert said Assemblyman John C. Carpenter wrote the amendments and saved A.B. 37. She explained there were many in the $50,000 to $75,000 income range who believe this legislation would hurt them financially. One was a firefighter who described an increase of $50 per month as representing a “hardship” to him. The graduated cap system, Ms. Gilbert concluded, is very fair and the amendments make the bill workable.
Bobbie Gang, Lobbyist, Nevada Women’s Lobby, said there is strong support for A.B. 37 and expressed regrets former Assemblyman Bob Sader was not present to provide the history of the original statute. Many sessions ago, she said, judges were not awarding fair amounts of child support payments. Ms. Gang asked the committee to focus on the children; too often the non-custodial parent believes they are paying child support to their former spouses and not the children. She said it is important to clear up the discrepancies in the bill, despite the time constraints of a 120-day session. Ms. Gang expressed concern agencies handling child support issues would have opportunity to find A.B. 37 “unworkable” unless it is clarified.
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, and Washoe County Deputy District Attorney, said her organizations support the amendments to A.B. 37 submitted to the committee by Elana L. Hatch (Exhibit C). She voiced support of them as well as those amendments submitted by the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association. These amendments, she said, strengthen the bill, and added the concept Assemblyman Carpenter put forth and adopted by the Assembly, a graduated presumptive payment, is fair. It is fair for both the person making the payments and Nevada’s children, Ms. Waldron concluded.
Vice Chairman Porter asked for those opposed to A.B. 37 to testify next, starting in Carson City and then hearing those in Las Vegas.
Ron Pacheco, concerned citizen, said he testified on A.B. 37 before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on February 15, 2001. He had a handout for the committee (Exhibit F) stating his position on the bill and the proposed amendments. He said he was pleased to see a tiered-level financial obligation and a commitment to the secondary custodial parent. Mr. Pacheco had some questions and concerns included in his written testimony he reiterated for the committee. One of his concerns was the annual increase in child support whether or a not a person receives an increase in pay on an annual basis. Another was the use of the CPI for determining the amount of child support a secondary custodial parent pays. A year-by-year breakdown of payments over 18 years is part of Mr. Pacheco’s written statement.
The next speaker was Brian Hutchins, concerned citizen, who also spoke in opposition to A.B. 37. He submitted a statement containing his objections to the bill (Exhibit G). Mr. Hutchins said he too is a state employee and an attorney who does not practice domestic law. He said he is appearing as a concerned citizen, adding, although he is speaking for himself today, he believes he speaks for many parents who are secondary custodians of their children. Mr. Hutchins has 2 daughters aged 12 and 8 years, and enjoys joint legal custody of his two daughters with his former wife. However, he explained, he is the secondary custodial parent. He said until recently he shared physical custody of the girls in a relatively even split of time. Each girl has her own room in his house, and though he pays for all the medical insurance, some clothes, sporting needs, school and church activity expenses, he also pays the maximum amount of child support payments. Mr. Hutchins said, “I think my girls are spoiled. They have more than everything they need.”
Mr. Hutchins said he is opposed to A.B. 37, explaining he is unclear about what A.B. 37 is now because it is, “sort of a moving target.” In the Assembly Judiciary, the bill came out in one simple form and it has changed a lot since then, he said. He referred to his written statement (Exhibit G), stating the proposed amended bill represents an approximately 4.6 percent increase in payments per year since 1987. Mr. Hutchins said there has not been any testimony about the actual cost of raising a child. He then said the courts have the authority to deviate but they do not and he thinks they should; therefore, he agrees with the proponents of A.B. 37 regarding courts and the ignoring of their option to deviate. He said the rate of pay for foster parents is $500 and suggested the new cap on child support contradicts Nevada law. Mr. Hutchins said he believed this new cap system would result in more deadbeat dads, more court appearances, and more responsibility for the court. He concluded the child support issue and proposed solution in A.B. 37 continues to be deficient, stating many things are lacking in the formula. He closed his remarks with, “The state policy should be to encourage both parents to raise the children.”
Mr. Hutchins then moved on to comments about Senator McGinness’ Senate Bill 369, which, he said, by comparison to A.B. 37, treats the issue of child support on a presumption both parents should share equally in the cost of child support. He said the bill did not get heard.
SENATE BILL 369: Makes various changes to provisions governing child custody, child support and paternity actions. (BDR 11-965)
Mr. Hutchins urged the committee to review the history of A.B. 37, remarking there was significant opposition to it. He also said the bill requires the State Bar of Nevada to make adjustments in the child support rates. Those recommendations made by the State Bar are actually determined by the family law practice section of the State Bar, and not the entire membership of the Bar, he said. He urged the committee to reevaluate whether the State Bar should be making these recommendations to the Legislature, stating it should be eliminated from the law.
John K. O’Connor, Lobbyist, Families Battling Injustice, said he is speaking on behalf of a local union in Churchill County, and stated the membership is not against all of A.B. 37 and wants what is best for the children. He continued, stating if statistical data indicates a need to raise the cap and if the noncustodial parent is required to report earnings, the custodial parent should have the same obligation. Mr. O’Connor agreed with other speakers in regard to judges who do not exercise discretion in their child support decisions. The other concern Mr. O’Connor expressed was an accountability issue, stating, “Everyone wants to pay child support. They want to make sure their children are healthy and safe. But, there are times the money is not going to the children.” Mr. O’Connor said concerned mothers from Churchill County who wanted to testify accompanied him.
Vice Chairman Porter said he understood the frustrations of those testifying. He said the frustration he has is the time issue, coupled with the desire to give each amendment and suggestion proper consideration.
Mr. O’Connor said there was one more important issue and questioned the meaning of the words, “legal responsibilities of the parents for the support of others,” in line 15 of page 4 of A.B. 37. He said if the noncustodial parent has a second family, he thinks the judge does not consider the cost of a second family in child support awards. Judges, he said, should consider second family obligations. He said the word “legal” should be removed from line 15.
Ms. Hatch addressed Mr. O’Connor’s question, stating “legal” was added to line 15 to clarify to the Judiciary Committee that if the noncustodial parent had an obligation to other biological or adopted children the court has to consider this as a reason to deviate downward in the support obligation. She added there is no deviation when the responsibility is not legally determined, such as a neighbor, cousin, or uncle, for example, living with the noncustodial parent.
Renee Sponcey, concerned citizen, and Families Battling Injustice, questioned Ms. Hatch about the word, “legal.” She described her relationship with her husband of 6 years, who has been raising her son for the last 10 years, but is not her son’s legal parent. She asked if the legal factor eliminates her son from this section of the bill.
Ms. Sponcey described herself as a concerned parent, stating she has been on both sides of the child support issue both paying and receiving support. She said in 12 years the only benefit she sees in child support goes primarily to lawyers. Ms. Sponcey said her current husband was divorced in the early 1990s with a decree giving him 50 percent custody and liberal visitation. She said despite the close proximity to her husband’s former wife and their children, once he had no contact with his children for 4 years despite his efforts, which included certified letters, calls, and even service by the sheriff.
Ms. Sponcey said her husband suffered a heart attack two years ago and desired to see his children. This too, she said, did not happen, though he was able to speak with them. She reported it was another 11 months before her husband saw his children. She said her husband does not want to visit his kids; he wants to raise his children. Ms. Sponcey claimed courts label noncustodial parents as “absent.” She said the court makes them absent, interested only in their money. Her husband works construction and after his heart attack the judge did not lower his child support obligation. Conversely, she said, no judge has ever admonished or cautioned his former wife about honoring the visitation. Ms. Sponcey exclaimed, “Shame on all of you. If you wanted what was best for the children, you would let them build a solid relationship with both parents . . .” Ms. Sponcey said everything between two parents should be 50‑50, including visitation and support, equal rights for everyone involved. The bill is written in the best interests of the custodial parent, and suggested starting over and making it right.
Veronica Bitto, concerned citizen, said she is a teacher in Churchill County who wanted to testify on a totally different perspective. She explained her marriage to a licensed contractor lasted 16 years; and, despite his income of over $350,000 yearly, he pays $100 per child in support for his 2 children. Ms. Bitto said she has tried for the last 3 years to get the court to adjust it, but has failed because her former husband can write off all his expenses, therefore, he pays more for his phone bill than he does to support his children. She pleaded with the committee to make changes to the entire bill.
Melissa Wagner, concerned citizen, said she was testifying on behalf of her fiancé, the father of three children. She stated he has 50 percent legal custody, but is regarded as the secondary residential parent. She added he is not the average wage earner. Ms. Wagner reported when her husband went before Judge Scott Jordan, the judge told him he did not have time to review the case. Her fiancé’s former wife was awarded $1750 in child support and alimony. The alimony, she said, was ordered for 6 months and currently he is in arrears and is paying interest to the state. Her fiancé’s former wife’s income is $3000 per month; he pays $1400 a month in child support. Ms. Wagner said this woman’s van has been repossessed and the utilities are shut off. She questioned why the recipients of child support are not accountable for their expenditures.
Lisa Stiller, concerned citizen, testified from Las Vegas. She said she was in an abusive marriage that ended in divorce in 1984. Ms. Stiller said for the last 17 years her former husband has continued to threaten her because, she said, she did not agree to a joint custody arrangement. At first she had custody of the children. However, in 1991, she lost her job with Oregon schools when property taxes were decreased. Then, taking advantage of the situation, her former husband, whose attorney was also a judge, walked in, took custody of the children, and moved them to Las Vegas. Ms. Stiller said her former husband earned $100,000 per month and the judge did not order her to pay child support. She said, although she continued to fear him, she decided to move to Las Vegas two years later. Her former husband then wrote to her promising her every penny she earned would go to him, she said.
Ms. Stiller said she moved to Las Vegas and appeared before Judge Steven E. Jones, who awarded her former husband child support, even though she was unemployed. She continued, stating her former husband earns over $1 million a year; but chose to go to the Child Support Enforcement Office to get child support from her.
Ms. Stiller said she was able to secure joint custody of the children in 1997, but her former husband would not drop the child support order. During her appeal, she said, Judge Jones refused to sign the waiver for the filing fee, and the case never went to the Supreme Court. She claimed her children were spending most of their time with her, but child support was still taken out of her paycheck.
Ms. Stiller addressed some issues she said she wanted the committee to consider. Her former husband left the state and her children are now with her, she reported, and she appeared again before Judge Jones asking for either child support, or no obligation to continue paying it to her former husband. Judge Jones did nothing; child support continued to be withdrawn from her check, she said. Ms. Stiller said the judge has been biased in this case for years. She described herself as impoverished. She pleaded with the committee to find a way to oversee the decisions of judges. The power of review is necessary to make decisions fair. Ms. Stiller said she is stuck and added, “All the money I’ve spent for attorneys could have gone towards my children. That money would have been better spent towards my kids . . . All through this my ‘ex’ has said, ‘I’m going to get you. I’m going to get you through your wallet.’” She said she was sure this happens in hundreds of thousands of cases. She reiterated there must be some power of review.
Ms. Stiller added her divorce and custody problems prevented her from getting a job with the Las Vegas School District despite the 5 credentials she holds from the state of Oregon. She claimed her income is now about $20,000, if she is lucky.
To avoid future situations like hers, Ms. Stiller offered to send the committee amendments she had prepared with attorneys. She said the District Attorney’s office in Las Vegas agreed she should not be paying support, but explained, because the decision was made in a district court, nothing can be done about it.
Vice Chairman Porter asked Ms. Stiller to please provide her suggestions to the committee.
Greg Weeks, concerned citizen, said he could easily echo many of the sentiments already expressed this morning, but acknowledged the time constraint, and agreed to be brief. Mr. Weeks said his chief concern was child support is a technical issue and very emotionally charged. He described A.B. 37 as “A Band-Aid for a patient that needs an organ transplant.” As support to his analogy, Mr. Weeks said both Ms. Hatch and Ms. Sheehan testified they are “desperate” to get this bill passed and referred to the additions and deletions as “made in the eleventh hour.” He said, when decisions are made in desperation, many things in need of consideration are overlooked, which, he said, is the case regarding this bill. Mr. Weeks said other states have laws different from Nevada’s regarding child support. He explained 31 states have found a way to deal with important child support issues currently neglected in Nevada law and in A.B. 37. Joint custody, he said, is a very big issue and it is not taken into account in this bill. He commended the proponents of A.B. 37 for their efforts to increase the cap amount. He agreed with the cap increase portion of the bill but he disagreed with the method of calculation.
Mr. Weeks commented on the theme of “no child will suffer (from A.B. 37)” threading the testimony of Ms. Sheehan and Ms. Hatch. He said he differs with their opinion because, he said, if A.B. 37 is passed without some logic and methodology other states have used, the children will suffer. Mr. Weeks concluded with, “As a state, we can do better. This is not an equitable solution. We can do better.”
Marshal S. Willick, concerned citizen and attorney in Las Vegas who limits his practice to family law matters, claimed to have represented thousands of people on both sides of the support question. Mr. Willick said he is a member of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, a former chairman of the family law section of the Nevada State Bar Association, and authored the 1992 and 1996 comprehensive reports on the History of Child Support Legislation in the State of Nevada. He said an attempt was made to deal with many areas people already have addressed diverging from A.B. 37. He said what was presented was too complicated to properly address in the limited time available; therefore, the focus is on the worst problem of the child support issue: the cap issue is what they adjusted, he said.
Mr. Willick offered to answer many of the questions brought up during the hearing. He also thanked those who created the current proposal saying, “Elana [L. Hatch], Todd [L. Torvinen], and Myra [A. Sheehan] have done an excellent job of trying to weigh political reality against practicality and looked at a need.” He agreed something has to be done now to eliminate the impact of the cap, stating the cap is doing ongoing harm to the children of the state.
Mr. Willick said, historically the Senate has always opposed the cap for philosophical reasons. In the original enactment of the child support statute the Senate rejected the provision entirely, only to have it restored in the conference committee in its current form. Mr. Willick agreed with the proposals submitted for automatic indexing for inflation, and to allow self-adjusting, but he has difficulties with the starting numbers and the impact on existing orders. He said the $750 cap should be the lowest index, not the highest. If not, he continued, the reality will be a 12 percent reduction of the noncustodial spouse income for those in the $0-$50,000 income range. This change would, he said, reduce child support deemed by law to be appropriate from the current 18 percent to 12 percent for those earning $50,000 yearly.
Mr. Willick asked the committee to peruse the figures found in his handout (Exhibit H) starting with $750 and increasing in $100 increments up to $1250. He suggested using those numbers as the bracketed numbers and sending them to conference. He said using these numbers would more clearly reflect the financial reality of people. Mr. Willick described an increase of $50 in child support payments for every $25,000 increase in annual income as “absurd.”
Mr. Willick agreed judges do not often deviate upward; he expressed understanding for the desperation of those paying and receiving child support. He said he believed to assess what is fair for the bulk of the support-paying population the 18 percent figure should be maintained. He said there should be a specific provision stating the statutory revisions are not intended to promote judicial reductions in support amounts judicially determined to be appropriate. Mr. Willick added, the income figure for the presumptive cap is calculated when the set percentage rate is no longer applicable. He concluded that, as currently written, A.B. 37 awards 12 percent of income for child support to those making $50,000 annually or less, and, he said, the percentage goes down from there.
Knight Allen, concerned citizen, said he came to speak in favor of A.B. 37 but not without reluctance and with many reservations. Mr. Allen described A.B. 37 as, “One of the worst aspects of lawmaking in that the very best thing you can say about it is that it is better than nothing.” He described it as particularly sad because the opportunity to improve it was handed to the Legislature by the State Bar of Nevada. Mr. Allen said the weaknesses in A.B. 37 flowed from two honest, serious mistakes made by the Assembly. He said the first mistake was the idea judges can override the statute at will, which is not correct. He used the same analogy of, “count on one hand,” the number of deviations by judges both Ms. Sheehan and Ms. Hatch referred to in testimony. Mr. Allen cited case law included in his handout (Exhibit I). He said the law was enacted to make order out of the chaos, which existed. He stated, “Judges do not have broad discretion and that is the purpose of the law.”
The second honest, serious mistake, said Mr. Allen, is “A.B. 37 flows from the parents’ perspective rather than the kids.” He said this bill is about kids and not parents, stating that when calculations start with parents instead of kids, the results are “strange and perverse.” He advised checking the numbers, stating they will reveal the only kids who get a true inflation adjustment are the ones at the top of the economic ladder, the rich kids. Conversely, the kids on the bottom, he said, get nothing. He asked if anyone in the Assembly could see the perversity of the figures, and then concluded, they could not. To his fellow Democrats, Mr. Allen said, “This situation is embarrassing. The rich kids get the gold mine; the poor kids get the shaft.”
As a solution, Mr. Allen proposed the first four income brackets, those including up to $125,000 income level, be meshed into one cap with a child support payment of $650 per month. By doing this, he said, the kids at the lower economic level do get about one-half of the inflation rate, which, he continued, is better than the nothing they get now. He asked the committee members to talk with their Assembly counterparts to work on this bill. He said, “It’s my hope and belief that you will be successful. However, if you aren’t, then come back and pass A.B. 37 . . . in whatever way you are pleased with.” He concluded with, “After 14 years, doing nothing is something we can’t let happen again.”
Chairman James, who joined the committee during Mr. Allen’s testimony, said he appreciated getting into the committee to hear his testimony.
Brent Howard, concerned citizen, said he has joint physical custody of his 9‑year-old daughter. He said A.B. 37 concerns him because it does not concern itself with time spent with children, rather only money. Whoever makes more money pays child support to the other; he referred to child support as “gender biased.” He supported this allegation referencing the 1998 Nevada Supreme Court decision Wright v. Osburn [114 Nev. 1367]. Mr. Howard said labor statistics prove men make more money than women and added, this practice of the man paying the woman is unfair, stating he also has to pay both attorneys’ fees. Mr. Howard said he is always reluctant to appear in court.
Mr. Howard said he does not believe it costs over $500 to raise a child in Las Vegas. He clarified his statement explaining he still has to have a house and car and a child reflects “extra” costs. He said, in Arizona, a 50 percent time share of custody also means neither party pays child support. He believes more effort should be expended to encourage parents to share custody. Mr. Howard suggested overhauling the entire child support statutes, stating those who share custody should be completely exempt from the law, and support should only apply to those who are noncustodial parents. He disagreed with adding the word “presumptive” to the cap, thereby allowing judges to order whatever they choose. Mr. Howard concluded he feels he is in a circle as his efforts in writing to judges and legislators from both the Senate and the Assembly, because one always blames some other legal body or cites case law; he expressed he hoped someone would listen to him. He said there has to be a way to change the system.
Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 37 and opened discussion on Assembly Bill 82.
ASSEMBLY BILL 82: Makes various changes concerning orders to protect person from crime of stalking, aggravated stalking and harassment. (BDR 15-35)
Assemblywoman Ellen M. Koivisto, Clark County Assembly District No. 14, opened the discussion, stating A.B. 82 is simple and relates to the cost of obtaining a temporary protective order (TPO). She said she spoke with Lieutenant Brad Simpson from the Las Vegas Metro Police Department (METRO) and learned the number of requests for TPOs decreased dramatically when the Las Vegas Justice Court imposed a cost for these orders. Henderson Justice Court and North Las Vegas Court do not charge, she said, adding they reported they would continue to not charge. Ms. Koivisto described a charge for a TPO as, “Further victimizing the victim, the victim is being asked to pay a fee for protection.” This bill changes the statute by eliminating a charge for this protection. Ms. Koivisto referenced a letter from Judge Stephen Dahl (Exhibit J), North Las Vegas Court, who supported A.B. 82 when it was presented to the Assembly.
Nancy Hart, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Office of the Attorney General, said the Attorney General’s office strongly supports A.B. 82 for the deferral of fees and costs for the purpose of securing a TPO from stalking or harassment. In addition, she said, it brings Nevada into compliance with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). She submitted a written copy of her testimony (Exhibit K).
Ms. Hart said there is a minor amendment to add a paragraph specifically stating there is no charge for serving the order (Exhibit L). This, she said, satisfies the provisions of VAWA. She explained failure to comply would result in Nevada losing $2.5 million in Federal funding.
Senator Wiener asked for clarification of a possible discrepancy in Ms. Hart’s testimony and the federal funding figures in her handout. Ms. Hart responded there are several grant programs under VAWA, two of which are directly related to A.B. 82, stating $1.2 million in federal grants are affected by this bill.
Senator McGinness noted there is no fiscal impact associated with this bill and asked what are the fiscal considerations. Understanding there cannot be a charge for TPOs or serving them, he said he wonders if this would be treated as a loss to law enforcement agencies. Ms. Hart said Las Vegas is the only agency charging for these orders; she did not think it would be a revenue loss issue.
Senator Care asked why the word, “deferred” is used instead of “waived.” Ms. Hart said the Constitution of the State of Nevada prohibits a waiver of fees if there is a court action involved. She explained the court can then waive the fee, but there has to be a fee recorded. Ms. Hart said the language was decided in 1997 to comply with VAWA, stating the judge maintains ability to waive fees and adding the other option is to amend the Nevada Constitution.
Senator Care then asked how often frivolous orders are requested without basis of fact, stating Senator Washington had brought this issue to light in a previous meeting. He explained his curiosity was using a TPO to retaliate or “get him.” Senator Care continued, pointing out the language of A.B. 82 implies the alleged stalker is the adverse party. He asked whether the court could collect fees if the order had no basis for petitioning it in the first place. Ms. Hart said if petitioner did not qualify for an order, there would not be an order issued. She said a sanction for a frivolous action could be filed, but, as written, A.B. 82 defers charging of a fee.
Susan J. Meuschke, Lobbyist, Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence, said access to the court is as critical for victims of stalking as it is for victims of domestic violence. She said we need to ensure victims throughout Nevada have access to protective orders and often application fees can be a barrier to such access. A.B. 82 brings us into compliance with federal requirements and also insures victims of stalking they would have equal access to protection. She concluded with a statement of support for A.B. 82.
Gemma Greene Waldron, Lobbyist, Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, and the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, stated for the record Washoe County does not charge for TPOs nor does the Sheriff of Washoe County charge to serve these orders. She said she was aware charges for this service are made in Storey County. Ms. Waldron voiced support of A.B. 82 and concurred there should be no charge for this service under any circumstances, adding that, if a person is found to have filed a frivolous application, there are other sanctions available through the court. She said the court clerks are comfortable with the limited amount of information A.B. 82 requires be given to an applicant for a TPO. She clarified this, saying it was the clerks in Washoe County whom she surveyed about this question.
Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 82 and opened the discussion on A.B. 429. Senator Porter said he wanted Chairman James to know Assemblywoman Buckley had been to the committee meeting and regretted she could not stay to hear the testimony on A.B. 429. Chairman James acknowledged and left the meeting.
ASSEMBLY BILL 429: Makes various changes concerning protection of children from abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights and guardianships of minors. (BDR 38-294)
Nancy Ford Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General, said she was appearing on behalf of the Division of Child and Family Services. She said A.B. 429 is Assemblyman Lynn C. Hettrick’s bill and he is expected to explain portions of this legislation. Ms. Angres explained the bill is an amendment to the Child Protection Act requiring that reports regarding children scheduled to be heard by the court are provided to the parents and other interested parties in a timely manner. She said this is proposed to be no later than 72 hours before a hearing on child abuse or neglect. These reports, she added, are to be provided free of charge. The bill also provides, she continued, recordings of proceedings and transferred information shall be provided to relevant parties on a sliding fee scale.
Assemblyman Hettrick arrived and began his testimony on A.B. 429. He stated this bill started out complicated, was negotiated down to a simple bill, but then amended to a complicated state again. The problem, he said, is with the numbering in the proposed amendment, section 3, subsection 2 (Exhibit M). Mr. Hettrick said Kimberly A. Morgan, Chief Deputy, Legislative Counsel, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB), numbered this as NRS 432B.410 to 432B.465 because it includes child welfare hearing for Indians. He said it was impossible to have someone provide documents on a 72-hour hearing 72 hours before the hearing; therefore NRS 432B.470, NRS 432B.480, and NRS 432B.490 were omitted. He said he believed these omissions satisfied the intent of this bill in terms of the 72-hour clause.
Mr. Hettrick continued, stating he had been involved in some child custody cases in Douglas County. He learned that because of time constraints and people’s schedules, those with court issues regarding children would be told as the hearing began that reports had been received from the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) or the Welfare Department, but they never had opportunity to examine these reports. Therefore, he explained, they had no time to refute statements or prepare comments on them. Mr. Hettrick said parents’ rights were being violated and efforts to regain custody of their children were hampered. He said attorneys representing parents, usually a Public Defender, questioned the lack of a chance to prepare a rebuttal to reports or adequately present a case in the parents’ behalf.
Mr. Hettrick said the effort involved in this bill was focused on working out the situation and reported everyone agrees with the solution, adding the judges and court masters actually like it. Basically, the amendment says if the reports are not provided within 72 hours of a hearing, the parents or their attorney can request a delay in the hearing. He added that if a report is harmless the parent has the option of proceeding with the scheduled hearing.
Mr. Hettrick said transcripts were also difficult to obtain or could take several weeks to receive, adding there is also an expense involved; therefore, the other portion of A.B. 429 includes providing sound recordings and transcripts of court hearings be made available to parents on a sliding fee scale depending on the ability to pay as determined by the judge. He said the idea of the law is to put families back together and these changes are included to facilitate the desired goal.
Mr. Hettrick pointed out another section was added to the bill allowing parents, if they so requested, to schedule a hearing for 90 days from receipt of reports and other information.
Vice Chairman Porter asked for clarification about Mr. Hettrick’s testimony and if it was about A.B. 429 or the amendments made to it. Mr. Hettrick stated he was testifying about the essence of A.B. 429. He said Ms. Buckley was the proponent of the amendment and he was presenting the “guts” of the bill. The original bill addressed a 72-hour receipt of reports to interested parties and the 90 days to schedule a hearing. The amendment was a discussion between two attorneys trying to decide the best way to write it. He said he is not an attorney and has no problem with the sections proposed by the attorneys and believes A.B. 429 is the appropriate vehicle to address their concerns.
Ms. Angres said Assemblywoman Buckley’s amendment to A.B. 429 deals with a child’s standing to appear and be heard in abuse, neglect and custody proceedings and additionally, to be represented by counsel. In the first draft, she added, the representing attorney was made a party to the action and, generally, attorneys are not parties to actions, but representatives. She said the current amendment was modified to give the child standing and allow the attorney to secure information and represent on behalf of the child (Exhibit N).
Senator Wiener questioned the deletion of “substantial language” from the bill, citing the words, “standing,” and “the right to speak,” and “to be involved in the proceeding which may affect that child.” She asked if there is a presumption that all of the language of the bill regarding the attorney is understood, specifically, that the child has a right to speak and a right to be involved in the hearing.
Ms. Angres said the goal is to preserve what already goes on in these court proceedings and added if children are not represented the judge has the discretion to talk to a child. She clarified if a child is two years old the judge may not want to involve him or her. She continued, stating the problem is when an attorney represents a child the defense attorneys try to prevent this child’s attorney from appearing on behalf of the child. This amendment was designed to prevent such an occurrence from happening, she said.
Senator Care said he was surprised a child currently does not have a right to be represented by counsel. He questioned the amendment language, “may be represented . . .” and wanted to know if there is a duty by the court to appoint an attorney for the child. He posed the question of a 13-year-old who says, “I would really like to have an attorney and I have no money. My mom and dad are fighting over that, what do I do?” Ms. Angres responded the court does have authority to appoint an attorney for the child at county expense. This amendment, she said, allows the child to be represented without the court having to appoint someone. She mentioned that in Clark County there is The Children’s Attorney Project wherein attorneys appear voluntarily on behalf of children.
Ms. Angres said child abuse and neglect cases are considered quasi-criminal in nature, stating these actions are against the parents with the child as the victim and the subject of the case. Generally, she continued, victims are not represented in cases, meaning they do not have an attorney nor do they often appear in the proceedings. She said in the next biennium the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) is sponsoring a Children’s Justice Task Force funded by federal funds to form a committee to study the issue of making children parties to these actions. The plan is to have a comprehensive review and return to the next legislative session with some recommendations based on the review of the entire statute, Ms. Angres said.
Senator Care said realistically the attorney contemplated under the amendment makes it difficult to comprehend how the child would know enough about the conflict. He said he did not know how realistic it is to expect a child to appear in court with an attorney. Then, Senator Care asked, if a child were represented, does the judge maintain the option of privately speaking to the child in judge’s chambers?
Ms. Angres answered affirmatively, adding the attorney would likely want to know what transpired. She then said these cases generally have lax evidentiary standards. Usually, she said, children do not appear at all in abuse or neglect cases.
Senator Care said he had a juvenile as a client but his mother paid the fee. He had to ask the mother to leave during discussion of his case to preserve attorney/client confidentiality. He said he could foresee some problems similar to this with the proposed amendment. Ms. Angres said the problem is one of several issues identified to be discussed when deciding how the process would work. She added the comprehensive review and revision of abuse and neglect cases is necessary to address this and other issues.
Ms. Angres said there was ongoing discussion with the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) regarding the removal of “pursuant to” in the amendment because there are times when no proceedings occurred and the language seems confusing. She said the recommendation is to delete the wording, but if LCB wants to keep it in the amendment they would agree in order to save the amendment. Mr. Hettrick added he understood the intent of both the Office of the Attorney General and the LCB; either way the bill is important. He said DCFS was extremely helpful in crafting A.B. 429, and assisting him in some actual cases. During this time, many issues were uncovered in need of attention. Mr. Hettrick said DCFS worked with him closely and agreed with the results of their mutual efforts.
May S. Shelton, Lobbyist, Washoe County, voiced support of A.B. 429 and the proposed amendments to it. She said Washoe County currently tries to get reports to appropriate people 5 days before a hearing. Usually this objective is accomplished, but the court occasionally moves a case up to accommodate scheduling. She continued, stating the amendment on page 1, section 2, of the first reprint (Exhibit N) is confusing and should be deleted. She said this makes the amendment cleaner and easier to understand, but as Ms. Angres said earlier, the legislation is more important than fighting about this line. She concluded, expressing a desire to amend and do pass A.B. 429.
Senator Wiener asked Ms. Shelton to expand on her concern. Ms. Shelton said the sections in question do not deal with the hearings. They deal, she said, with references to the Indian Child Welfare Act, which is enforced. Senator Wiener verified her concern is the line in question is inappropriately placed because the issue is about court proceedings.
John C. Morrow, Lobbyist, Washoe County Public Defender, said he supports A.B. 429 and reported an amendment submitted to the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary was rejected. He said the concern revolved around an attorney being party to the proceedings, but added the proposed amendment satisfied his concern. He said often the people he represents are incarcerated, either in Nevada or in another state, and he requested more time to consult with his clients after the reports are received. In addition, he said, some parents are irresponsible and he frequently does not see a report until the hearing begins. He said he wants reports delivered to him in addition to the parents, explaining it eliminates the need to request a continuance on a case.
Ms. Shelton said one of the family court judges also expressed concern about the time frame regarding reports. She said Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, suggested using the court rule and codifying the need for a longer time to schedule hearings.
Mr. Morrow said he strongly supports the idea of representation of children and added, as an aside, particularly in regard to older children, when the court appoints an attorney for the child’s case, the attorney becomes the guardian of that child ad litem and is concerned with the process. He said the interest of child and the interest of the litigation may diverge and then, he said, there conceivably could be a time when a child needs two attorneys.
Vice Chairman Porter asked Mr. Morrow to submit his concerns to be further discussed in a work session. He requested Ms. Shelton approve his suggestions before Mr. Morrow submits them to the committee. Mr. Hettrick then pointed out Mr. Morrow’s suggestion was for a 10-days-before-hearing requirement, but the request would then put a fiscal note on the bill. He explained the 72-hour requirement is a minimum requirement, and the court has the option of extending it to 10 days if they deem it necessary. Currently, he said, there is no number of days and 72 hours is only to be regarded as a minimum, stating there was no disagreement to Mr. Morrow’s amendment, other than a problem with attaching a fiscal note.
Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, said she supports A.B. 429; specifically, the intent of the bill to assure reports and information needed by the parents are provided to them in a timely manner. She continued the amendments giving children representation is not problematic to her either. Ms. Lusk said she supports the bill and the proposed amendments.
Vice Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting at 11:37 a.m.
Ann Bednarski,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman
DATE: