MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session May 8, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 9:40 a.m., on Monday, May 8, 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 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy M. Saitta, Senior Deputy Attorney General Nancy Angres, Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division Kathleen Shane, Washoe County Department of Social Services Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department B.D.R. 13-1740 Authorizes court to issue orders which are in best interests of minor children for whom guardian has been appointed. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 13-1740 REQUESTED BY THE NEVADA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. ASSEMBLYMAN STROTH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * B.D.R. 57-1737 Revises provisions governing policy limits of certain policies of insurance. ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF B.D.R. 57-1737 REQUESTED BY THE NEVADA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION. ASSEMBLYMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. * * * * * ASSEMBLY BILL 534 - Makes various changes regarding protection of children from abuse, neglect and abduction. Nancy Saitta, Senior Deputy Attorney General, testified their office brought forth the legislation in A.B. 534. Ms. Saitta is also the Childrens' Advocate for the state of Nevada. Ms. Saitta began by explaining the bill section by section. She stated although Section 1 deals with domestic violence, the entire bill is intended as a child welfare bill. The state needs to start looking after children residing in homes where there is domestic violence. She continued with Section 2 of the bill which identifies a child who resides in a home where there have been two or more instances of domestic violence reported either through Temporary Restraining Orders or arrests as being a child in need of protection. Ms. Saitta also presented prepared testimony containing information on domestic violence and the impact it has on children. Her prepared testimony is attached hereto as (Exhibit C). Ms. Saitta expressed A.B. 534 provides a tool for law enforcement to bring the child or the family into care or provide resources or intervention for the family. Law enforcement would be allowed to refer a case to the district attorney for prosecution if necessary for the protection of the child. Oftentimes, law enforcement is called out to the same residence time after time but has no authority to intervene in any way. Ms. Saitta acknowledged the concern of the county and state social service protection agencies that they will be overburdened with care and placement of children removed from homes based on the provisions set forth in A.B. 534. However, Ms. Saitta emphasized the intent of A.B. 534 is not to remove children from their home. Rather, she sees this bill as providing for removal of the abuser from the home and allowing court intervention to order services to help facilitate protecting the children found in abusive home situations. Ms. Saitta continued Section 3 of the bill deals with mandatory training for teachers, counselors, and administrators in the school district so they can identify child abuse and neglect and be educated in the area of family violence. This section is primarily an educational device which would be prepared in-service to the schools by the Attorney General's Office with assistance from county and state services. Ms. Saitta confirmed the provisions of Section 3 are not to be tied to licensure and would not be considered mandatory. Ms. Saitta declared Section 6 of the bill would allow a child to be placed in care if there is a risk of abduction. She further explained this deals in the area of family or parental abduction which occurs more frequently than we realize. (484 cases in 1994 of missing and/or abducted children in Nevada) This section of the bill would allow the parent to come before the court to explain why there is a risk for abduction and why a civil order would not be effective to protect their child from abduction. The child would then be placed in a voluntary placement situation for a short period of time to keep the risk of abduction as low as possible. Ms. Saitta explained Section 8 of the bill is a clean up section which includes married parents for sanctions in previous applicable abduction statutes. Ms. Saitta clarified they have discussed the concerns the social services agencies have with this bill and are attempting to try to work out some amendments that would better define particular sections of the bill of concern to them. Mr. Anderson asked how the requirement for educating teachers on child abuse differs from the training currently in place for teachers. Ms. Saitta stated the presentation would be held either annually or bi-annually provided so all teachers would be better educated in identifying the signs and symptoms of child abuse. Upon Mr. Anderson's further inquiry, Ms. Saitta stated the presentation would not initially be taken for credit or certification, but could possibly be expanded in that fashion. Mr. Carpenter asked if the courts do not already have the power to do what A.B. 534 provides. Ms. Saitta stated the bill is a device for law enforcement to bring repeat offenders and the entire family before the courts for implementation of counseling or other services. This would especially come into play when the woman in a domestic violence situation does not go forward to press charges on her assailant or does not move ahead for a temporary protection order yet law enforcement continue to receive calls to that family's residence. Ms. Buckley expressed her concern for court orders requiring the parents to stay away when there may not be any proof of abuse yet established. Ms. Saitta acknowledged that area of the bill needed more clarification and she would address that in her proposed amendments to the committee. Upon Mr. Perkins' inquiry, Ms. Saitta stated the judicial review referred to in Section 6 of the bill, would be the family court. Mr. Carpenter concurred child abuse and domestic violence is a problem we face today; however, he has concerns about the false accusations that are sometimes made against parents by their kids. He stated perhaps A.B. 534 was going too far and the courts can probably address most of the problems on this issue with the laws currently in place. Ms. Saitta stated the key to A.B. 534 is allowing law enforcement to make the referral of the family to the courts based on what they see when called out to the home. Nancy Angres, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, pointed out the concerns with Washoe County and Clark County protective services regarding A.B. 534 center around the fiscal impact. The goal is not to have the bill have a significant fiscal impact but rather provide another mechanism to help protect children. Ms. Saitta concluded they are working with their opposition and they currently have some amendments underway which they will present to the committee. Kathleen Shane, Director, Childrens Services Division, Washoe County Department of Social Services, testified in opposition to A.B. 534. Ms. Shane added her testimony today was also representative of the views of Clark County, specifically by way of May Shelton of Washoe County discussing the same with Kirby Burgess of Clark County Children and Youth Services and Ms. Shane discussing the bill with Carol Stillion of Clark County. Ms. Shane stated they do see a link between child abuse and domestic violence and action is necessary. However, they have a distinct difference of opinion with the Attorney General's Office regarding the application of A.B. 534 as written. The provisions defining the child in need of protection is one area of concern. The issues herein revolve around arrest versus conviction and the battery of a child on two or more occasions. Ms. Shane stated the largest issue they are concerned with is the tremendous burden that will be placed on the child protective service agencies in terms of focusing on domestic violence issues instead of harms committed against the child. Ms. Shane acknowledged A.B. 534 is a law enforcement tool; however, in practical applications, it would be the child protective service agency that becomes the case manager. Ms. Shane informed the concerns of the family court mediators and others reviewing the bill is that if people are fearful their children will be removed from their home, they will not report the domestic violence occurring in the home. Additionally, Ms. Shane noted another problem with A.B. 534 was found in Section 2 wherein court ordered services are required. She stated traditionally many of these families do not have the funds for counseling or other court-ordered services so that burden may fall upon the county and state. She stated the cost of a psychological examination can range from $500 to $1,500.00. Ms. Shane stated the original Section 6(b) of the bill was omitted from the rewrite and they would like to see that original language retained. Section 6(b), as she recalls, would allow a parent to make a voluntary placement within an agency. Ms. Shane concluded the fiscal impact, based on their interpretation would be from $192,000 to $285,000.00. Ms. Shane provided additional statistical data regarding the fiscal impact of A.B. 534 which is attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Ms. Shane informed the committee she discussed the bill with Family Court Judge Scott Jordan of Washoe County. Judge Jordan expressed his desire to be involved in any re-writes of the bill and he wanted to emphasize that as written, A.B. 534 would be very costly to the counties. Upon Ms. Steel's inquiry, Ms. Shane stated with the $285,000 quoted earlier, this sum would involve placement of approximately 50 children and a social worker being assigned to approximately 200 cases per year. Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, stated they support the intent behind A.B. 534 but remain "aggressively neutral" on Section 3 of the bill. Additionally, he noted they experience situations on a regular basis where a child should be removed from a home but they (law enforcement) do not have the authority to take the child into protective custody. Mr. Olsen stated upon calls to homes where domestic violence occurs, the child is often hiding or crying hysterically in the corner of the home but since there is no actual injury to the child they cannot do anything. Mr. Olsen provided a form entitled "Some Effects on Children of Living with Violence" for the committees' review. This form is attached hereto as (Exhibit E). Mr. Olsen stated the fiscal impact is always an issue; however, the welfare of these children are of utmost importance and steps do need to be taken to prevent these kids from being unbalanced or becoming an aggressor of domestic violence or child abuse themselves in the future. He sees A.B. 534 as providing the appropriate mechanism for protecting children but noted it does need some clarification in certain areas. Upon Mr. Carpenter's inquiry, Mr. Olsen stated if the child is in imminent danger of harm, they can have the child removed from the home. Of course, a child would be taken into protective custody if the wife was taken to the hospital to treat injuries and the husband was arrested. However, most often they cannot make an arrest if they cannot determine the primary aggressor nor do they have any legal right to remove the child from the home if the child is noticably physically harmed. Mr. Carpenter asked how passing A.B. 534 would help them. Mr. Olsen stated it would allow them to send a report through the system and then the court could order the family into counseling without there having to be an arrest. Further discussion was held regarding page 2, Section 5, which sets forth "arrest of two or more . . ." Ms. Saitta added Section 5 needs more clarification regarding the threshold of two or more. Mr. Perkins clarified Section 5 of the bill (a) through (e) is the current law which allows a law enforcement officer to take a child from a home. That does not include what has been presented today. Mr. Olsen confirmed when both parents are taken into custody, of course the child is taken into custody also. Chairman Humke commented he sees the bill leading to preventive detention of adults or preventive removal of a child from their home. Ms. Saitta stated although that may appear so by reading the bill, she assured the intent of the bill was not removal of the child from the home but removal of the abuser from the home. In addition, the goal of the bill is to bring the family to the attention of the court so intervention of community-based services can be provided to the family. Ms. Saitta added that perhaps some of the amending language they are going to be addressing will clarify that further. Chairman Humke stated occasionally the courts will sometimes informally order a perpetrator to leave the home on a "voluntary" basis and he sees the preventive detention situation being closely related to that. Upon Ms. Steel's inquiry, Ms. Saitta acknowledged the increased level of reporting by way of the courts or law enforcement, may sometimes aggravate the family abuse. However, she added the community services and counseling the family is ordered to undergo should go a long way in teaching them better parenting skills and anger control to reunify the family into a healthy environment. Chairman Humke stated the committee would need to have some way to gauge the fiscal impact on counties and the state. Ms. Saitta confirmed they will attempt to obtain that information for the committee as they continue to work on amendments on the bill. She noted there is no impact on the Attorney General's Office and they are working with the proper county and state authorities to work out their fiscal impact. Lieutenant Olsen concluded by addressing Mr. Carpenter's earlier concern in that sometimes parents are wrongly accused by children. The police department investigates these matters to insure that what is being accused of happening is true. However, the occurrence of false accusations is rare. Ms. Buckley remarked the committee's amendment number 376 to Assembly Bill 395 dealing with similar subject matter included language such as "history of domestic violence" and "clear and convincing evidence" standard. She concluded that Ms. Saitta may want to review those amendments during their discussions on proposed amendments to A.B. 534. Chairman Humke asked the Attorney General's office and their opposition, Washoe County Social Services, to meet to work out amendments to bring back to the committee. Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst, referred the committee to four amendments that will be brought on the floor today so if any comments or questions were forthcoming from the committee he would like to know. There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary May 8, 1995 Page