MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 1, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:08 a.m., on Monday, May 1, 1995, Chairman Humke presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED: None GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Meta-Marie Lorigan, Adoption Director, Catholic Community Services of Nevada Ms. Pamela Kurcz, adoptive parent Ms. Wanda Scott, Division of Child and Family Services Mr. Thom Reilly, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Child and Family Services Mr. Michael Patterson, adoptive parent Mr. Bruce Palmer, Welfare Division Ms. Sheila Leslie, Action for Nevada's Children Mr. David F. Sarnowski, Chief Criminal Deputy, Attorney General's Office Mr. Donald W. Winne, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division Ms. Marquita Burris, adoptive parent Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Mr. Bob Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties Mr. T. J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities Ms. Kathy McClain, Lobbyist, Clark County Mr. Christian Anderson, Executive Director, LDS Social Services in Nevada ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 503 - Makes various changes to procedures for adoption of child. Mrs. Jan Monaghan, District No. 1, sponsor, testified A.B. 503 came out of the concentrated effort of many people with concerns and desires to improve adoption laws. She disseminated background material and proposed amendments, attached as (Exhibit C). Mrs. Monaghan advised of a new section adding presumption in law which provides: (1) after termination of parental rights, the best interest of the child is primary by remaining in the home of the adoptive parent; (2) written report of medical and sociological history of the child and parents, if available, is given to the adoptive parents; and (3) notification for eligibility for grants and financial assistance and how to apply for the assistance is given to the adoptive parents. Mr. Thom Reilly, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Child and Family Services, testified in support of A.B. 503. The division has amendments to the bill which are in agreement with Mrs. Monaghan and the Attorney General's Office. Mr. Reilly briefly reviewed the support they have for the main components of the bill and the amendments, attached as (Exhibit C). In reference to Section 7 Chairman Humke commented the report of biological information about prospective adoptive child not being supplied to adoptive parents caused recommendations that people not deal with the state department of welfare for adoption due to a great deal of difficulty. Hopefully, it will change. Chairman Humke inquired how sibling groups are dealt with. Mr. Reilly advised the only provision to deal with sibling groups would be contained in the adoption subsidy. Children who are part of the sibling group are entitled and can be defined as special needs. This bill will not address the issue of separation of siblings. In the last two years one of the areas concentrated on was to place children together. If they are placed in foster care separately, then they develop attachment to separate parents and grow apart. In the beginning they constantly monitor the list of children separated and make case by case decisions. In certain situations children have to be separated. It is the division's desire to keep siblings together; but, they also recognize that cannot happen in all circumstances particularly if permanent homes are desired. Chairman Humke asked if the division allows visitation with a non-adoptive sibling in an adoptive home. Mr. Reilly advised it is by a case by case decision. If an adoption has been finalized, it usually would have to be agreed upon with the adoptive parent before finalization to continue sibling visitation. In reference to the news report of Supreme Court baby Richard decision, Ms. Steel inquired if by saying it is in the best interest of the child, would it go around the problem they had in that state. Mr. Reilly stated what was lacking in Illinois was there was no statute like this. It does not mean it can never occur; but, it strengthens Nevada's law and gives the court something to hold onto when they render decisions in reopening an adoption or overturn a TPR. Ms. Steel questioned why the registration portion was deleted from the bill. Mr. Don Winne, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, representing the department of human resources, explained two reasons for deletion: (1) registration part comes from principally New York State. There was a Supreme Court case which indicated automatic termination of parental rights had to be handled carefully. The scheme in N.Y. was such that you were required in the adoption proceeding itself to look at the registry, determine if this child had a father and notify the father according to the registry. Nevada uses a completely different system. In the adoption proceeding, one is only obligated to notify a legal guardian of the child which may be the division of child and family services or an agency who has gone to court and got a legal guardianship. Parents do not have to be notified because in a NRS 128 termination of parental rights consent to adopt from parent, relinquishment of division of child and family services, or terminated parental rights had already been obtained. Due notice provisions in the NRS 128 chapter apply. Nevada has bifurcated the two proceedings by terminating parents' rights first and then file adoption proceedings. In N.Y. they combined the actions into one. In the Robinson case, the Supreme Court ruled they are entitled to due process before termination of parental rights. Ms. Steel asked what would be wrong with giving them due process before rights are taken away. If they took the time to go and register, it means they do have an interest in this child. Mr. Winne advised the problem is if you have a registry, first of all the impact to set up the program would be tremendous. Secondly, one is asking a person to assume they know the name of the child. Otherwise, if you are guessing, someone will have to go to file statistics and speculate a child may have been born at a certain date. The gender of the child is not known. The mother's name may be known; but it could have changed also. A greater likelihood of a baby Richard or Jessica case will result, because the parent could claim to have registered; but, you never actually gave him notice. The adoption proceedings did not include the parent. Therefore, just because the registry was checked with the mother's name and with the baby's name, it will not hold up in the Supreme Court. Actual notice and not presumed notice must be given. The foregoing reasons are the problems of the registry. Under Nevada law with the separation of termination and adoption, there is the publication process if the whereabouts of the parent are unknown. Actual service process is the ideal; and, termination may come to a close. This bill requires the parent to go back into the termination side of the case rather than open up the adoption case to be able to find out who the adoptive parents are. The identity should be protected at all cost. It also allows the agency to come and defend termination if it is an agency adoption. Thereby sparing the adoptive parents legal costs incurred if taken to the Supreme Court. Mr. Sandoval questioned Section 5 of A.B. 503 as to the due process requirement for the biological parent to set aside an adoption. Mr. Winne advised currently, it is up in the air. The one situation involving an agency adoption is that the biological father has come back into the case and claimed inadequate notice. The parent appealed the termination case to the Supreme Court. Because of separate proceedings and service by publication, Nevada Supreme Court ruled it was sufficient. The case was remanded to district court to allow the parent in the case to prove it was in the best interest of the child. The parent's rights were eventually terminated and was not appealed. With the provision of best interest of the child in both NRS 127 and NRS 128, it will strengthen the law. Mr. Sandoval concluded this is a gray area that needs to be formalized to give each side notice of how a set aside is going to be affected. Mr. Winne agreed. Chairman Humke commented in this state there are no private adoptions. Adoptions are performed by state welfare. This bill does not do anything to change this and was consideration given to this. Mr. Reilly responded the other agencies that perform private adoptions are LDS social services, Jewish family services, and Catholic social services. If the state ceased performing adoptions, there are no other organizations to assume adoptions. An adoption agency out of Washington was recruited which may be licensed in the next few months to take over the private adoptions. In this manner the state can concentrate on the special needs children. Nevada is one of the few states performing private adoptions which could be turned over to the private sector. If it was done today, there would not be the ability in the private sector to take over those adoptions unless it is turned over to attorneys. Chairman Humke wondered if any other state permits private side adoptions where attorneys and doctors work together. This method is conducive to children. Mr. Reilly advised they have looked at other states and would be happy to provide the information. Mr. Sandoval requested clarification if it was the intent for the adoptive parents to have access of a report of the medical and sociological history of the adoptive child. Mr. Reilly advised if the information is available, for example, if it was an abandoned child, they would not have it. The intent is that if information is available for medical and sociological, it is provided to the adoptive parents. Mr. Sandoval advised the wording of this section is confusing. Chairman Humke commented the bill drafter can prepare amended language to clarify. Mr. Christian Anderson, Executive Director, LDS Social Services in Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 503. He was a social worker for 15 years and a caseworker with adoptive and birth parents, as well as he is an adoptive child. The intent of this legislation to keep an adoption intact in the best interest of a child is something that is important and necessary. With language like this in our law, one is more confident the adoptions will be valid and remain affirmed. Over 15 years ago the best interest of a child in determining where the child should stay in the custody disputes was suggested by Anna Freud. It generally has not been considered a factor in the U.S. With the advent of baby Jessica and Richard we are seeing more of that. Registry would put responsibility on the parent to facilitate adoption in a more expeditious manner. Some states allow independent social workers to function as certified adoption workers without the use of an agency. Ms. Meta-Marie Lorigan, Adoption Director, Catholic Community Services of Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 503. Ms. Lorigan has been a social worker since 1943, formerly worked for the state of Nevada, and presently works for a private agency. It is very important the best interests of the child be served. It has bothered her that it has not been done. Ms. Lorigan has seen in the past angry fathers retaliate against the mother. The registry would ensure fathers who are genuinely interested and want their children will be recognized. Ms. Sheila Leslie, Action for Nevada's Children, testified in support of A.B. 503 with proposed amendments, attached as (Exhibit D). Ms. Pamela Kurcz, adoptive parent from Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 503 and related special needs of an adoptive child with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). Mr. Michael Patterson, adoptive parent of two children, testified in support of A.B. 503. He adopted a special needs child, possibly FAS, but has no access to sealed court records for medical and sociological history. They had to deal with the child's problems piece by piece with no background to help him. The youngest son was adopted last year. The agency provided him with medical and sociological background to assist him in being a better parent. Mr. Patterson referenced a newspaper article where a crying child was torn from its parents arms, it was scary that it could happen to him. Ms. Marquita Burris, adoptive parent, accompanied by her son Andy, testified in support of A.B. 503. Andy has been in her home for 11 months and has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as FAS. Andy has numerous behavioral management problems. Child welfare has given her a lot of incentive. They knew from the beginning the child's special needs, medical, and sociological history. They were given everything important for the quality care of Andy. Ms. Burris declared Andy always will know he is adopted because he needs to know he has a history and know his birth family. Children need to stay in a stable environment. Chairman Humke expressed his theory that children with ADHD often become some of the primary leaders in our society. All of the adoptive parents are doing a job of heroic proportions. Chairman Humke asked Ms. Kurcz if the support group for adoptive parents in Las Vegas has been successful in greater openness with adoptive parents. Ms. Kurcz was asked to serve on the division's adoption advisory committee and has been able to bring forth adoptive parents' concerns. Chairman Humke questioned if there has been any recent changes in release of medical and sociological history to adoptive parents. Ms. Kurcz advised those issues are being addressed through training of adoptive parents. The support group is serving as a resource in giving guidance and information referral. Mr. Patterson advised the Reno agency is extremely open. There is a 12- week preparatory class for adoptive parents. The complete medical and sociological history of his adoptive son was provided. He had adopted his first son as a single parent. When he remarried, his second son was adopted. The information provided helped him to focus on the special needs of the children. Ms. Burris advised these children are not misfits. Their birth parents made the mistakes. Adoptive parents need all the support to insure upbringing of the child. It is important to give children everything they need and not have to suffer because of it. Mrs. Monaghan thanked the adoptive parents for their testimony because without them, the bill would not be needed. More adoptive parents are needed because there are a lot of children who need you. This bill is an attempt to make it easier and possible for everyone. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 511 - Specifies proportion of wages of offender assigned to center for restitution to be paid to victim for restitution. Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41, sponsor, described an incident of two senior citizens where an accountant embezzled more than $50,000. Restitution was ordered for a total of $30,000. They actually only received $15 per month. It was very far from the truth that offenders actually paid back what they stole or what the court ordered. The only safe window to recover restitution is in the restitution centers. In prison an inmate pays five percent gross of what is made for restitution. Of the approximate amount of $300,000 court ordered restitution less than $2,000 is actually paid back. It is an area that needs to be addressed. The bill provides higher percentage restitution to the victims. Department of Prisons computed fiscal impact of estimated $450,000 over the next biennium by requiring no payment for room and board except for 10%. Presently, $15 per day is paid. Assemblyman Spitler remarked the Department of Prisons will work with him in offsetting $450,000 and asked the committee to hold his bill in abeyance. It is not his intention to financially overburden the prison system. Chairman Humke commented victims should be considered first priority in restitution. Taxpayers do have to pay for the cost of incarceration. Mr. Anderson agreed with his Co-Chair, and it is balance that needs to be done. Victims should have the first dollar. Chairman Humke suggested referring the bill to Ways and Means Committee. Mr. David F. Sarnowski, Chief Criminal Deputy, Attorney General's Office, extended an offer to act as a resource to the committee and sponsor. Early in the session, his office provided voluminous material and submitted recommendations to fix the broken collection system. Mr. Mello of the courts administrative office was asked for input. If it is the inclination to process A.B. 511, Mr. Sarnowski mentioned minor concerns: the bill addresses one side of collections when an offender is in prison or under supervision of parole and probation. It does not address which are either always or assessed against defendants. It is important to parties involved to have legislators advise what the priorities of collection should be. Administrative assessment fees imposed in every gross misdemeanor and felony case are divided between the county and state. Reimbursement for the public defender, lab fees, fines, victims of crime, supervision fees, and any other fees/fines/assessments are in the collection system. Mr. Goldwater inquired what is the current deductible threshold from wages of an offender. Mr. Sarnowski did not believe there was a statutory threshold. A prioritized list needs to be taken into account of restitution. Mr. Goldwater asked if they were ongoing obligations or once a point of indigence is reached, they are declared uncollectible. Mr. Sarnowski advised NRS 176.275 provides that fines and administrative assessments become liens just as judgments entered in civil cases. There is a provision to allow the sentencing court to determine the financial ability of offender to pay fines and assessments. If it is impossible to collect, the court can declare it does not have to be paid. Mr. Perkins remarked A.B. 511 is good policy statement for the legislature. Mrs. Monaghan was concerned the victims of crimes are at the bottom of the list and asked for the percentage actually collected. Mr. Sarnowski replied if 10% is collected of everything assessed, it would be high. Of the administrative assessments fees of each of the $25 assessed, 5% returns to the county, and 20% to the state through the Attorney General's Office. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars that have gone uncollected. Chairman Humke pointed out a bill draft from Justice Young was requested to address the administrative assessment. The draft will result in a directive to the bench for construction of orders. Due to Mr. Sarnowski's very good points, this issue is on the borderline of where the judiciary committee's responsibility stops and where the ways and means committee takes up. There are some policy issues judiciary should deal with. Mr. Sarnowski recommended following Assemblyman Spitler's recommendation to hold the bill in abeyance to allow them to confer. If the collection system is not set up properly, it is destined to fail. Ms. Buckley asked if it would cure Mr. Sarnowski's concern to amend the language. Basically combining all the possible clauses where restitution might be proper, such as on p. 1, l. 15, if it was changed to an "or" to ensure that certain individuals if they plea bargained, it would include the amount of restitutions entered by a court as well as for the incarceration period. On p. 2, l. 9 and l. 17, she recommended expanding circumstances for which restitution was ordered and whether or not it would meet those policy concerns in order to motion amend and do pass. Mr. Sarnowski advised it would address the immediate problems he addressed. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 511 WITH THE AMENDMENTS BEING ON P. 1, L. 15, CHANGING THE "AND" TO AN "OR" AND P. 2, L. 9 AFTER THE PHRASE "PAYMENT OF RESTITUTION CONTINUE AS A CONDITION OF PAROLE," TO ADD "OR WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS SET TO NRS 176.033;" AND ON L. 18, AFTER THE WORD, "INCARCERATED", TO ADD THE SAME CLAUSE, "OR FOR WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION WAS SET PURSUANT TO NRS 176.033." ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 512 - Authorizes certain local governments to seek reimbursement for expenses incurred for supporting and maintaining prisoners in county or city jail to detention facility. Assemblyman Larry Spitler, District No. 41, sponsor, testified people who are found guilty of crimes with means to reimburse society for costs they brought onto society have an obligation to pay. It is with that philosophy A.B. 512 returns very close to its original form. First it is not mandatory and would allow counties and cities to seek reimbursement. Mr. Spitler briefly explained some of the highlights of the bill. In many instances there is no recovery. Mr. Sandoval remarked this is a good bill. Every person owes a debt to society. However, there are many persons to whom civil judgments mean nothing. Mr. Sandoval suggested in lieu of a judgment, an offender be ordered to perform community service. Mr. Spitler advised it would be considered a friendly amendment. It is very difficult to get offenders to pay back and probably would present the same problem in community service. This is one of the reasons he looked as hard as he could in A.B. 511 when the person was actually under the supervision of the prison system. Because it is the most operable time in which to get restitution. When offenders leave restitution centers, they disappear and cannot be found. Ms. Steel questioned why it was capped at $30. Mr. Spitler noted the $30 was put in by bill drafting. It is more for room and board. Sometimes phenomenal medical costs can be incurred. Ms. Steel suggested striking out whichever is less. Mr. Spitler agreed. Mr. Schneider questioned if a person's property could be taken and sold for pain and suffering, such as in an automobile accident. Mr. Spitler pointed out it is county and city, and it is permissive. If the offender were incarcerated, the entities could go after recovery of the costs once the defendant is convicted. Mr. Spitler concluded the victim of the crime must be kept in focus. The victims of crime are taxpayers and they are supporting the other system that is requiring all the fees, so they are left out. If there is some way to affirm our commitment to looking at victims, it should be done. Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Legislative Liaison, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, testified there are a number of offenders who can afford to reimburse for their expenses. A.B. 512 allows local government to have another tool to work smarter and use human resources wisely. Mr. Bob Hadfield, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties, testified in support of A.B. 512 and amendments. This is enabling legislation that would give local governments one more tool to deal with difficult issues surrounding the criminal justice system. We will continue to be responsible for those people who are unable to accept their share of their burden created on that system. It is prudent and in the best interest of the taxpayers to allow local government to recover those costs from people who are convicted and have violated the criminal justice process and society. All of us are victims and have to pay the cost that perpetrators cannot afford. Ms. Kathy McClain, Clark County Manager's Office, testified in full support of A.B. 512 and echoed NACO's sentiments. Mr. T. J. Grady, Lobbyist, Nevada League of Cities, testified in support of A.B. 512 with amendments. In Clark County jail Ms. Buckley asked if there were any estimates of how many individuals who are jailed, what type of assets are encountered. Lieutenant Olsen was not aware of any. He offered to get information from court services if she wished. Ms. Buckley was interested in the amount of possible revenue it might earn. As a follow up to his earlier comments, Mr. Sarnowski answered Mr. Schneider's earlier question regarding victim's recoupment. Awards for pain and suffering are left to civil court system. Mr. Sarnowski addressed Section 3 of A.B. 512. NRS 176.065 governs cases regarding fine and incarceration. This proposal does set some order of priority to certain critical items, i.e., child support, alimony, restitution and administrative assessments. If counties are allowed to pursue their options, there probably will not be enough to satisfy all levies. In Section 2, it is envisioned that a prisoner could get paid for a concurrent stay in jail. It has to be actual time in the jail facility. Oftentimes a concurrent sentence will be imposed to a felony sentence. If it is evident from the record there would be no need to recoup monies that were never expended because of concurrent time in a state facility and not spending time in a county facility, it would help clarify A.B. 512. Mr. Anderson noted the prisoner is given credit for time spent in the county facility and asked if the county would be reimbursed for his stay. Mr. Sarnowski advised the courts by law must accord the defendant the credit for time served absent unique circumstances. The county would be owed if they incurred expenses. Mr. Sarnowski affirmed the judge does give credit for time spent. It would give a new way to allow pursuit. The court specifies the number of days held in custody. Not all those days credited for are served in county facility. The judge gives a gross amount of time served credit and relies upon parole and probation department to tell the court the number of days. Mr. Anderson inquired if it is possible funds may be sent out of state for time a prisoner may have spent in an out of state facility. As written, A.B. 512, Mr. Sarnowski advised, does not limit itself to Nevada counties or governing bodies. Mr. Sarnowski did not believe it creates any authority for the county to seek recoupment from state because this limited to pursuing civil remedies against the prisoner. The administrative burden is too great to determine amount of days for recoupment. Chairman Humke directed Assemblyman Spitler to work with the involved agencies to develop amendments to address the concerns. Mr. Carpenter asked if when taking an individual's personal freedom away, he can still be required to pay for it. Mr. Sarnowski advised a measure of due process would have to be followed. If a civil suit has to be filed, those protections are built in. In the federal system there is a set amount of recoupment. On p. 3, subsection 5, Mr. Carpenter referenced prevents disposition of prisoner's property, it states the court may without a hearing. Mr. Carpenter asked if it could be done without a hearing. Mr. Sarnowski replied statute already allows in unique circumstances, one litigant to have a court order similarly as proposed in Section 5. All this does is allow litigants to ensure their property would not be disposed of. Then it could be sorted out by the courts if there are lien holders or others interested in the property. Mr. Sandoval asked if a defendant can cause himself to become indigent by incurring substantial consumer credit debt and claim because of payments inability to pay. Mr. Sandoval inquired if a dollar amount for community service should be assessed by the hour or day. Mr. Sarnowski stated he was not in a position to answer. Consistency in the dollar amount set for collection of fines is desirable. If it was too detailed in hourly collections, it would become a bookkeeping nightmare. Court services unit has offenders fill out a form for the court to determine indigence. Offenders in some cases collect their assets to hire counsel. Then of course they are not indigent in a sense they did not require a public defender appointment. Realizing A.B. 512 will be referred to a subcommittee, Mrs. Monaghan questioned the community service aspect and the way the bill was written for a non-indigent person. She asked if it meant if one was indigent, community service will not be required. Mr. Sarnowski advised the statute provides the sentencing judge as part of the sentence can impose incarceration, fine, and community service. It has nothing to do with the person's status as an indigent or ability to pay. The concern here is you have persons who, if they were able to work off a fine amount or the cost of incarceration, they may be able to do so. It would not be cash money due the city or county. There would be some way to get something back from the defendant who took up a jail cell for a day or two. Chairman Humke directed Assemblyman Spitler to work with Mr. Sarnowski, Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Grady, and anyone else from local government who they feel could help including the state public defender. This is an informal group and not a subcommittee appointment. Chairman Humke called upon Mr. Anderson for several bill introductions: ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR BILL INTRODUCTION OF BDR R-1920 WHICH IS A REQUEST FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE URGING CONGRESS TO PASS THE VIOLENT CRIMINAL INCARCERATION ACT OF 1995. ASSEMBLYMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR 3-1734, REQUEST FROM THE NEVADA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION THAT ALLOWS DECEDENTS TO RECOVER PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN AN ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DEATH. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO REQUEST A BILL DRAFT WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THAT BRIEFS BE FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND ORAL ARGUMENTS SCHEDULED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE LAST BRIEF IN APPEALS ON AGE DISCRIMINATION CASES. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Humke informed the committee members with the exception of drastic need no more bill draft requests will be entertained. ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 451 - Prohibits harboring children who run away from home. Based on consultation with several proponents of the bill in Clark County who now feel it is not necessary: ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 451. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Humke adjourned the meeting at 10:28 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Patty Hicks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary May 1, 1995 Page