MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Sixty-eighth Session March 13, 1995 The Committee on Health and Human Services was called to order at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, March 13, 1995, Chairman Vivian L. Freeman presiding in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman, Chairman Mrs. Jan Monaghan, Chairman Mrs. Jan Evans, Vice Chairman Mr. William Z. (Bill) Harrington, Vice Chairman Mrs. Deanna Braunlin Mrs. Barbara E. Buckley Ms. Saundra (Sandi) Krenzer Mr. Dennis Nolan Mrs. Dianne Steel Mr. Wendell P. Williams GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Pepper Sturm, Chief Principal Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: William C. Torch, M.D., Neurodevelopmental & Neurodiagnostic Ctr. Cathy Wilson, Child Abuse & Neglect Prevention Task Force Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum Peggy John Francis Gillings, Americans for Constitutional Government Lynette Langguth Rick Earnhardt Lynn Chapman Sherry Schroeder, American Assoc. Of University Women Lucille Lusk, Nevada Concerned Citizens Sheila Ward, Carson/Douglas Christian Coalition Carolyn Nelson, Independent Americans Elizabeth A. Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby Martha Gould Diane Loper, Nevada Women's Lobby Ned Eyre Sherri Lakin, Nevada Eagle Forum Chairman Freeman requested committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) S-1763 which extends the date for prospective expiration of provisions that limit increase in charges that major hospitals may impose. This BDR was requested by the Department of Administration, Budget Division. ASSEMBLYWOMAN DIANNE STEEL MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-1763. ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Freeman thanked those who came to testify this afternoon and informed them another committee would be using the room at 3:30 p.m. today. As a result this committee would have to adjourn by that time. ASSEMBLY CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13 - Recognizes responsibility of Nevada Legislature to consider perspective of children in development of social policy and enactment of legislation relating to issues which affect children. Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 13 is a resolution Mrs. Freeman introduced. She has long been interested in issues relating to children and has been working with Dr. William Torch to determine what could be done at the Legislative level to recognize and support those issues. William C. Torch, M.D., M.S., a pediatric neurologist with private practices in Reno and Carson City, opened testimony on ACR 13. During three years at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, Dr. Torch saw the violence and devastation produced by poverty, drugs and the beginnings of the AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) epidemic. He saw the terrible consequences of child abuse and learned trauma neurology. Over the last fifteen years he has seen an exponential increase in child abuse, neglect and abandonment and also the consequences of prenatal drug experimentation that affects so many of the children in his practice. Some days fully twenty percent of Dr. Torch's practice consist of children who have fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal alcohol affect and/or the consequences of severe child abuse, neglect and abandonment. Dr. Torch presented slides of newspaper articles reporting local cases of child abuse and statistics concerning child abuse. In a USA Today magazine article last year, Nevada ranked highest among the fifty states in child abuse reporting. The average rate of reporting is 45 per thousand children, in Nevada there were 64 reports of child abuse per thousand. Nevada is among the top five most violent states in the country. The problems in Nevada are part of a national problem as illustrated by an article in the American Medical Association News titled, "Seeing the Pain: America's Physicians Confront Family Violence". This article states child abuse, mistreatment of seniors and domestic battery are equal to other causes of major health problems such as coronary heart disease, AIDS and cancer. The AMA (American Medical Association) calls this the billion dollar epidemic; Dr. Torch believes it is in the trillion dollar range. Dr. Torch presented slides given him by Dr. Ellen Clark, forensic pathologist at Washoe Medical Center. The slides showed child victims of abuse, which ranged in severity from beatings, punches and strappings to neglect and death. Abuse can also manifest itself in the form of fetal alcohol syndrome and prenatal drug exposure. Drug induced congenital malformations are a problem affecting many children. It is estimated one in twenty births now are complicated by cocaine and one in 100 to one in 300 children born every year have fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol affect. Recognizing the frustrations of dealing with child abuse, Dr. Torch began to set down his thoughts concerning what needed to be done to change this disastrous situation; how to deal with issues relating to the community and family violence, hate crimes, crime, spousal abuse, child abuse, gang violence, drug problems, teenage pregnancy, etc. The word "child" is not mentioned once in the United States Constitution, nor in the Bill of Rights. Nevada's Constitution also does not once mention "child". A number of organizations feel this situation should be changed. The National Task Force for Constitutional Rights of Children has been formed advocating a simple amendment putting children in the Constitution. The resolution Mrs. Freeman is presenting today was read into the Nevada State Legislature on May 7,1987 by the Nevada Federation of Women's Clubs and Child Abuse Coalition. For clarification Dr. Torch stated, "This is not called a Child's Bill of Rights; it is simply a statement recognizing the responsibility of the Nevada Legislature to pay attention to our children." Child abuse arises from four major areas of concern. First is fragmentation of our society and the breakup of families and our communities with the loss of parenting skills and the ability to resolve conflicts. Second, there has been an increase in violent attitudes in this country and our society along with a decline in moral and ethical values. Violence begets violence and abuse begets abuse in recurrent cycles. Third, there are problems with attitudes towards children as property, as chattel, giving parents greater rights than children. This makes it difficult for physicians, lawyers, judges, legislators and everyday citizens to deal with the problems of protecting the child. One consequence of the word "child" not being in the constitution is parents are not separated from children who are being abused. Parents are given the first right of refusal and children are never placed on an equal par. No distinctions are made about what is proper discipline and where the line of discipline is crossed and child abuse begins. "The Children's Bill of Rights", (Exhibit C,) written by Dr. Torch was derived from basic principles espoused in Mrs. Freeman's resolution being introduced today. The bill of rights is practical, contains much detail and consists of twenty potential amendments Dr.Torch would like to see aired and discussed before the Legislature in the future. He would also like to see this bill of rights go beyond Nevada's borders and be adopted by other states. Assemblywoman Monaghan noted Dr. Torch has only mentioned abuse but has not provided any examples of the thousands of happy children living in Nevada. She agreed we all want the best for our children and that not even one case of abuse is acceptable, however the rights and responsibilities of parents must not be overlooked nor removed. Mrs. Monaghan commented ACR 13 is not a law but the Legislature must be very careful when regulating everyone that the majority who are good parents will not be harmed. Dr. Torch agreed but noted the Constitution was accepted by all of us when we became citizens and we are all governed by responsibilities and protected by it. Parents should have the right to parent and they should have first say on how to bring their children up. However, guidelines to protect those parents' rights should be set up and we should be able to differentiate between those parents' rights and abusive parents rights. A lot of parents today who are good parents are being abused by our legal and social systems because there is no differentiation between what constitutes discipline that is proper and discipline that is abusive. Standards we can all agree on should be set. Mrs. Monaghan stated she does not disagree children need protection through laws. Dr. Torch introduced Mrs. Klymann and her son Michael who is severely brain damaged from child abuse, is blind, deaf and had reverted to a one month old. Mr. and Mrs. Klymann adopted Michael three and a half years ago. Mrs. Klymann, herself the victim of an abusive home, knows from experience how abusive, neglectful homes can raise neglectful, abusive parents. Each child born into this world deserves to be loved and protected, however, if one has been raised in an abusive, neglectful home, how does one learn the needed skills. The man who abused Michael Klymann served a seven month sentence for this crime; Michael will always be in this condition. We need a bill of rights that will help families love one another, have unity, good standards, good morals and good protections. Next introduced to testify on behalf of ACR 13 was June Link who has custody of her granddaughter Crystal. Mrs. Link's daughter takes crank, drinks, smokes, has experimented with marijuana and other drugs and did so while pregnant with Crystal. As a result, Crystal has cerebral palsy and myotonic dystrophy which affects her eating, swallowing and chewing. Mrs. Link has permanent legal guardianship of Crystal because her daughter did not want to bond with Crystal. She just wanted a doll, something she could hold and play with, kiss and cuddle, then forget about taking any responsibility for. Since Crystal's birth, another baby, Chelsea Marie who also has cerebral palsy, has been born to the same woman. Mrs. Link's niece has temporary guardianship of this granddaughter. The mother took drugs and alcohol during this pregnancy as well. How many babies is she going to have before something is done to tell parents if they are going to do drugs and have handicapped children they are going to abuse and neglect, the state should be able to tell them they need help. Mrs. Link wonders why her daughter needs to keep having babies. In conclusion Dr. Torch read two letters of endorsement for his bill of rights one by the Department of Pediatrics at Washoe and St. Mary's Hospitals and one from Dr. Coletti, Nevada Chapter of the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). The Nevada Chapter AAP will introduce the bill of rights to the national leadership of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Assemblyman Nolan asked what Dr. Torch hopes ACR 13 will accomplish other than demonstrating the will of the Legislature and its support and whether there any practical applications. Dr. Torch responded the Legislature should send a message to its own citizens and the rest of the United States. Assemblywoman Steel questioned whether ACR 13 is the proper vehicle to be used to send Dr. Torch's message. The people who need to hear this are the very people who do not obey laws which is why they are abusing their children. She agreed with the concept but is wary of a children's bill of rights which, for all practical purposes, would emancipate children to make their own decisions with no guidelines from their parents. Given too many rights, children may be able to do things they cannot do now. Dr. Torch asked what subject Ms. Steel is questioning. If it is ACR 13, that is totally separate from a bill draft Dr. Torch would like to present in the future. Assembly Concurrent Resolution 13 does not take away a parent's rights to raise their child in a way they see fit. It emphasizes and protects that right. Ms. Steel disagreed saying she believes ACR 13 is a "baby step" toward emancipation for children. Cathy Wilson, with the Child Abuse and Neglect Protection Task Force in Reno, spoke next as a single parent. Ms. Wilson does not find anything in ACR 13 that is opposed to the way she raised her son, nor does she find any of it intrusive. What this resolution does is announce that Nevada is a state that wants prevention of child abuse and is looking forward to its future through our children. This is not a dangerous resolution and the fact it is there reminds us all we need to keep that in our minds when we make our laws. It is not taking away parents' rights; it is just saying "let us remember our children when we make our laws". Elaine Lancaster representing the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) spoke next in support of ACR 13. The NSEA would like to go on record as supporting ACR 13. Mrs. Freeman called upon testimony from those opposed to ACR 13. Janine Hansen, President of Nevada Eagle Forum, spoke first agreeing everyone is concerned about child abuse and its increase in society. After serving on the National Task Force on Families in Crises, authorized by the U. S. Justice Department, which looked into family and domestic violence, she learned a lot about those issues one of which was 90 percent or more of family abuse can be directly related to the abuse of drugs or alcohol. In looking for a way to help our children, the solution lies in attacking the basic problem and dealing with those who are abusing drugs and alcohol. Ms. Hansen noted the NSEA also has a bill of rights in their handbook which states in part, "No child in a land of abundance shall be wanting for plentiful and nutritional food". That is a worthy goal but does it mean the government will come into each home and determine if that child's food meets guidelines a bureaucrat determines is appropriate? Another section of the bill states, "A society as advanced in medical knowledge and ability as ours shall not deny medical attention to any child in need". Does that mandate government health care? Number three in the NSEA's bill of rights states, "Whereas security is an essential requirement to a child's healthy development, the basic security of a place to live shall be guaranteed to every child". Does that mean government will be providing every family with a home rather than expecting it is an individual's responsibility to provide a home. It has been Ms. Hansen's experience the more government becomes involved, especially in social welfare, the worse the problems become. Number four, "To insure the potential of the individual and nation, every child at school shall have the right to a quality education", sounds good but does it deny choice in education. Does it determine what the curricula will be and will it be in accordance with local desires and cultural background that should be reflected. Number five states, "The government, whose primary role is to protect and defend at all levels, shall assure children are safeguarded from abuse, violence and discrimination". Ms. Hansen feels abuse and neglect should be approached on an individual basis with individual legislation that aims, in a very guarded way, directly at the problem and not at parents in general. Ms. Hansen handed out a copy of another resolution drafted by the National Education Association (NEA) dealing with early childhood education, (Exhibit D.) The pamphlet indicates NEA's support for early childhood education programs in the public schools for children from birth through age eight, a full continuum of services for parents and children including child care, child development and meeting health and nutritional needs. Parents are responsible first and foremost for their children, government is not responsible. ACR 13 suggests the Nevada Legislature should recognize its responsibility to consider the perspective of children but nowhere is the perspective of parents or families included in the development of social policy. The state of New York has a bill requiring every piece of legislation have a family impact statement. Maybe Nevada needs similar legislation in the enactment of legislation relating to issues which affect children. Specific concerns about ACR 13 addressed by Ms. Hansen begin with wording within the resolution, i.e. "A child has the right to be loved". Who will determine that? Will someone come into the home to determine that? Another part of the resolution reads, "A child has the right to a permanent and stable home". Ms. Hansen, as a newly single parent, lived with her own parents for a time to provide a home for her children. Would that be considered a stable and permanent home? Many single parents are struggling to survive economically. Would their rights as parents be jeopardized? "A child has a right to have all of his needs met, physically, nutritionally, mentally, morally, and spiritually." As a single parent, it often was difficult to meet just the basic needs which children have. Who will determine if these needs are being met? What about children's moral and spiritual needs. Neither morals nor spirituality are supposed to be discussed in the schools. Does this mean the state will be determining whether the child has sufficient spiritual development? How will it be determined? Whose religion will it be based on? These are serious concerns for parents. Mrs. Freeman pointed out appreciation for the concerns of children is the intent of this resolution. She believes Ms. Hansen is going far afield of any intent of the resolution in her testimony. The resolution says children are important and we need to consider their needs and she is slightly irritated with some of the things being intimated could happen with passage of ACR 13. Ms. Hansen responded she is very concerned that the development of social policy and legislation is being determined by this resolution. Mrs. Freeman reiterated that is not the intent. Ms. Hansen disagreed. Mrs. Freeman added there is nothing about religious freedom in the resolution and asked whether Ms. Hansen had anything positive to say about it. Ms. Hansen replied she signed up to testify against the bill because she is opposed to it and that is what she is doing. She does not feel the answer to families' problems or children's problems lie in government. The answers lie in shoring up individual families and lowering taxes so families can have a parent in the home to take care of their children. Ms. Hansen reiterated the issues of drug and alcohol abuse should also be dealt with. Mrs. Freeman stated she does not disagree with those issues. Ms. Hansen mentioned "the right to a quality education" concerns her. Does it mean parents are denied choice in educational options, particularly anything that is not public education. Another concern is the phrase "The child has a right to diagnosis and treatment of physical and social and emotional conditions". Recently some parents were turned into the social welfare department for neglect because their children had not been immunized. It was their religious belief that their children not be immunized and yet they were charged with neglect. These kinds of things have great potential for harm in the hands of government bureaucrats who will intervene in the family. Ms. Hansen does not want children to be abused; children should be protected. However, the family should also be protected. The final statement in the resolution states, in part "the right to guidance and fair treatment from all in authority". It does not say the right to fair treatment from their parents it assumes there is an authority other than the parents, particularly as the last line states "to receive these services from the proper authorities as mandated by law". This obviously recognizes, as the resolution says, that the government is responsible for these, not the parents. Ms. Hansen is very concerned about the undermining of family and parental rights. She sees this resolution as jeopardizing those and does not think the answer to protecting little children lies within this resolution. Very carefully crafted bills which will specifically deal with abuse and especially with drug and alcohol are what is needed. Assemblyman Harrington acknowledged he is concerned about some of the resolution's wording specifically line 20 beginning with "from all in authority" through line 24 and asked if Ms. Hansen would find the rest of the resolution acceptable if those were deleted. Ms. Hansen agreed those lines concern her greatly, however she is also concerned about some of the other basic statements and particularly about who the determining authority will be. Nowhere is that addressed. Perhaps it should be stated within the resolution that the first responsibility, as recognized by the Constitution and in law, is the responsibility and right of parents. Recognition of parental or family rights is not mentioned anywhere. Mr. Harrington noted the resolution does not state it is not the parents' duties, so by deleting those lines, the reference to government assuming those functions would be eliminated. Ms. Hansen responded the reference to government is on the second page of the resolution where it states, in part, "in the development of social policy and the enactment of legislation". That wording draws government in and without specifically protecting parental and family rights, she cannot support ACR 13. Mr. Harrington pointed out lines two through four say, "the Nevada Legislature recognizes its responsibility to consider the perspective of children in the development of children in the development of social policy". He believes all perspectives should be considered in all policies. Ms. Hansen agreed wording such as "the perspective of children, parents and families" would certainly improve it. Mr. Harrington stated he could support that wording. Ms. Hansen believes the best protection for the majority of children is in the family. The resolution as a whole does not protect parent and family rights, but those would be excellent additions. Assemblyman Williams, responding to testimony so far, explained as policy makers, a responsibility given them by the voters, Legislators deal with issues that affect families every time they meet. When the day comes that they do not consider legislation impacting children from a positive standpoint, they should "pack it in". He has no problems with any of the lines in the resolution and does not see what is so harmful about it. It is simply asking that children be considered in the future when considering legislation impacting social policy. That is the direction the Legislature should be going and there is nothing threatening about it. If any legislation results from adoption of this resolution, it will be debated, heard and people will have an opportunity to testify for either side. ACR 13 is intended to protect children and the words in it are not damaging nor threatening. Mrs. Freeman emphasized the intent of the drafters of the resolution is to focus on the needs of children in any public policy the Legislature develops. She noted there were a few people who wish to speak in favor of the resolution and if they could keep their comments brief, they could be heard at this time. Elizabeth Livingston, Nevada Women's Lobby, introduced Sarah Chvilicek, Northern Division Chair for the Nevada Women's Lobby who distributed an issues card to the committee, (Exhibit E.) This matter is very pertinent to concerns they have been lobbying for since their inception in 1988. Martha Gould urged the committee to support ACR 13 stating a stand supporting the needs of children in this state needs to be taken. Mrs Freeman called upon Peggy John, who signed up in opposition, to present her testimony. Ms. John, appalled by the slides shown by Dr. Torch, is very much opposed to child abuse. Her son-in-law, a deputy sheriff in Douglas County, assures her there are laws on the books to take care of all the problems concerning child abuse. She wondered if this resolution would really solve the problems our children face. Ms. John believes it is merely a good intentioned measure to make the Legislators feel good about themselves and is actually a potential threat to some of our most precious freedoms. Earlier discussion about this resolution being a "baby step" and what it might lead to needs to be considered when looking at ACR 13. Carolyn Nelson, sent by the Chairman of the Independent American Party, presented part of their national party platform which relates to ACR 13: "God has invested parents with the responsibility for the nurture and training of the children He has entrusted to them. Education should be parentally accountable." Focusing on welfare issues, Ms. Nelson continued reading from her party's platform, "The more remote the source of charity, the less effective and appropriate the action and the smaller the portion which reaches the needy. More important, the affect of welfare is determined by the context in which it is delivered." Mrs. Freeman interrupted, saying welfare is not being discussed today. Ms. Nelson disagreed saying the resolution discusses identity, loving and physical and nutritional needs, like the WIC (Women's, Infants and Children's) Program. Mrs. Freeman asked Ms. Nelson to step down, stating she was out of order. Ms. Nelson requested her three minutes to continue speaking in opposition. Mrs. Freeman said, if she would address the resolution, she could resume testifying and no three minute time limit had been set. Ms. Nelson continued saying the message of Christian charity is fundamentally at odds with the concept of welfare rights. In many cases the delivery of welfare by government is not only misdirected but morally destructive. Mrs. Freeman again interrupted stating if Ms. Nelson would speak to ACR 13 she could continue. Ms. Nelson responded that this is the Independent American Party's view. Mrs. Freeman requested Ms. Nelson speak to the resolution otherwise step down. Ms. Nelson noted line 24 of ACR 13 says, ". . . as mandated by law." She added, "Apparently there are laws already mandated by the state concerning drug and child abuse, nutrition, education and religion," and asked, "why do we need this resolution?" Francis Gillings, referring to line one of ACR 13, noted children are being called "the state's most precious resource". He stressed children are not a resource of the state. Quoting line 12, "A child has the right for all his needs to be met, physically, nutritionally, mentally, morally and spiritually . . ." he asked whether parents will be forced to teach their children the humanistic religion being taught in the government schools. Mr. Gillings quoted line 16 which reads, "A child has a right to be protected from abuse, neglect and exploitation . . . ." Who will decide what abuse is? Some government bureaucrat? Mrs. Freeman repeated nowhere in the resolution does it say government is going to do anything to or for children. It is a statement of the Legislature's concern about the children who live in our state and told Mr. Gillings to stay with the subject under discussion or she would ask him to step down. Mr. Gillings, cutting his testimony short, requested the committee read a book titled, America's God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations to learn what built America and what is destroying it. Mrs. Freeman requested Mr. Gillings be removed from the room and called on the next speaker. Lynette Langguth has many concerns that the resolution is too broad. With three children, she is very much against child abuse. Her goal is to raise and love her children and she believes other parents want that for their children also. The concept of meeting children's needs "spiritually" has the potential, because it is so broad, of other laws being made along with it. If her five year old does not want to go to church with her, would he not have to. On the question of abuse, Mrs. Langguth and her husband are in favor of what they call "controlled spanking" which means the parent is in control of himself and discusses with the child why he is being spanked. Will the government call that abuse? Another of her fears is this will not decrease abuse. People who abuse their children will do so no matter what the law says. For good parents, if it is against the law to use controled spanking and they are not able to utilize such a tool, children would grow up without discipline and as good parents would become frustrated over losing rights to take care of their children. This resolution appears similar to a United Nations Resolution on the rights of the child. If passed Washington would believe they had approval to pass the United Nations Resolution which could lead to United Nations powers intruding into the United States to help enforce that law. Rick Earnhardt, speaking as a father, is only concerned with government intervention into his life as far as any mandates about how parents will love and nurture their children. He believes there is good will and good intentions behind this resolution in that the Legislature wants to send a message. His personal conviction is this toothless resolution is unnecessary to remind us of the importance of children. What is needed is strengthening existing laws and departments already in place to take care of these things and educating our communities about child abuse and reporting it. We should work on getting people in our communities across Nevada to recognize child abuse, how it affects our families and what causes this frustration in people. Mr. Earnhardt sees this bill as a first step or an opportunity toward a much broader agenda. Everyone in this room genuinely loves children, however, this could be an open door for those who would like to exploit, in a government way, more intervention into our lives. Parents are responsible, from the time a child is born, for paying every bill and providing every bit of food, clothing, nurturing and doctors, etc. However, if this resolution is passed and this wording is used for other bills, those bills will be discussed as was mentioned earlier. The people testifying may be subjected to the same kind of rudeness as has been witnessed here today by people pushing their own agenda and believing their own ideas should be the only ones heard here. We should all have more compassion and love for each other. We are all trying to help children however, we do not need to pass a toothless piece of legislation just so the committee can hold up a banner and say they are doing great things. The real truth of the matter is you can do great things by strengthening and undergirding existing laws and agencies, people and education. Lynn Chapman, representing herself and her husband, is past president of the American Legion Auxiliary and comes in contact with the U. S. Constitution. She agreed it does not mention children however it also does not mention mom and dad or grandpa or grandma, it mentions "We the people" and children are people. So children are protected under our Constitution; they are mentioned as "people". The resolution speaks of "quality education", "guidance and fair treatment", "children are entitled to receive services from proper authorities as mandated by law", but Ms. Chapman questioned what services, what authorities, who will decide and whose definition will be used? Applying those questions to some of the lines in ACR 13, she is made uncomfortable. She feels the resolution is not well written and does not address what is really needed, which are stronger laws and enforcement of those laws as regards drugs and alcohol. Most parents are concerned about their children, love them and already take good care of them. There are people who do not and those are who should be targeted, not everyone. Court decisions protecting parental rights, (Exhibit F,) include Meyer v. The State of Nebraska, a U. S. Supreme Court decision which states, "The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to marry, establish a home and to bring up children". Parents also have the primary responsibility for the care of their children. Prince v. Massachusetts is a U. S. Supreme Court decision stating, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder". In Ware v. Estes a U. S. District Court decision states, "The state cannot unreasonably interfere with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." Mr. Harrington inquired whether ACR 13 would be acceptable to Ms. Chapman if the references to government on lines 20, 21, 23 and 24 were deleted. Ms. Chapman repeated she does not feel the resolution is necessary and is not comfortable with it at all. Sheila Ward, representing Carson Douglas Christian Coalition, expressed that group's opposition to ACR 13. Lucille Lusk, representing Nevada Concerned Citizens, believes there are far- reaching implications to ACR 13. It has a great deal to do with the role of government and the role of the family. There is very little in the resolution that has to do with the kind of child abuse spoken of and shown graphically in the first hour of testimony, essentially only lines 16 and 17. The summary of the resolution is very incomplete compared with what is actually in the resolution. Nevada Concerned Citizens finds the resolution to be a declaration of entitlements from the government. Lines 23 and 24 state, "A child has the right and is entitled to receive these services from the proper authorities . . . ." "These services" clearly refer back to a whole series of entitlements the government cannot ever provide. Items such as love, a sense of identity, the meeting of all moral and spiritual needs, the diagnosis of social conditions, etc. Everyone wants these things for children but who in government has the wisdom to determine the moral, spiritual and social needs for all children. Who can determine when those are met and when they are not met. When government steps in to provide some of these things, it sometimes takes away others by disrupting the home to provide for better physical needs, for example, you may take away the very sense of belonging and identity that the child has. It is possible even to create additional emotional needs as a result of some of these things. It is difficult to define precisely what "physical needs" means. How many clothing items does a child need in order to have his clothing needs met, for instance. Does he need his own bedroom; his own bed? Ms. Lusk sees real danger in placing these kinds of decisions in the hands of the government and she does see this resolution as a step in that direction. Ms. Lusk related to the committee the fact that her child, living with a spouse and two children in another state where the laws mandate a three bedroom apartment for a family that size, must pay much higher rent that they really should need to in order to provide for a state defined physical need. This could be taking away other needed things with the money they must put into much higher rent. To reiterate, the summary to this resolution, if it fully states the intent of the author, would be met by deleting lines 4 through 24 and simply stating the intention that children are important and that their perspective is somewhat different from adults and should be considered. You might also wish to amend the final phrase to say, on page two lines 2 and 3, ". . . the Nevada Legislature recognizes its responsibility to consider the perspective of both children and parents in the development of social policy and the enactment of legislation . . . " No one would disagree with the need to consider the perspective of all those who are involved. If you were to consider the perspective of both children and adults, that would be the strongest, most balanced thing you could do. Assemblywoman Monaghan, remarking that Ms. Lusk has been around the political process for a long time, inquired whether she had ever seen a resolution turn into a law. Ms. Lusk replied she had on many occasions. Mrs. Monaghan remarked if ACR 13 came back as a bill, it would have to go through the legislative process with its hearings, etc. As a resolution it has no teeth and is non-binding. Ms. Lusk countered she had seen resolutions with binding aspects. She feels when the Legislature takes a position it is the Legislature saying, "This is what we believe", the agencies of the state tend to think that is really what you meant and they tend to try to do what the Legislators wanted. It has an affect even if it is not a law. It is not the intention of this Legislature to create all these entitlements and Ms. Lusk hopes ACR 13 will be defeated. Ned Eyre, speaking on his own behalf, is in opposition to the resolution. It is one that can lead to things which could be very damaging to the family and to the main social structure in this country. ACR 13 fails to address the question, "by whom" and that is key. The agencies will use passage of ACR 13 to amend the law and the reason and the purpose of the law. Sherri Lakin, representing Nevada Eagle Forum, agrees this resolution would hamper parents in their responsibility to protect and care for their children. Ms. Lakin is very much opposed to ACR 13. There being no time for further testimony, the committee adjourned at 3:20 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Vivian L. Freeman, Chairman Assemblyman Jan Monaghan, Chairman Assembly Committee on Health and Human Services March 13, 1995 Page