MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
March 28, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 8:00 a.m., on Friday, March 28, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. 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 Amodei, Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Dennis Nolan (Excused)
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Barbara Moss, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
John Albrecht, Chief Tobacco Counsel, Office of the Attorney General
Anthony M. Bandiero, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association
Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District
Paulinus Alaribe
Buffy Gail Martin, Lobbyist, American Cancer Society-Reno
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN)
Caroline Follis, Nevada Open
Sandy Hellman, Vice President, Northeastern Nevada Foster Parents Association
Jean M. Uhrich, Nevada Open, Bastard Nation
Emil DeJan, M.P.H., Chief, Bureau of Health Planning and Statistics, Health Division, Department of Human Resources
Patricia A. Glenn, Lobbyist, Nevada Right-to-Life
Janet Nordine, Nevada Open
Richard Rinker
Paula Long, Nevada Open
Edward E. Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Wanda Scott, Social Welfare Program Specialist, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources
Hayley Jarolimek, Licensed Social Worker and Program Specialist, Washoe County Social Services
Cynthia Lu, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, Washoe County
Travis Baer, Latter Day Saints (LDS) Family Services
Amelia D. Keele
Alisha A. Peterson
Christy Brad Escobar, Families Supporting Adoption
Kristie Traver
Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, Legislative Chair, National Association of Social Workers-Nevada
Della Shores, Nevada Open
Robert V. Payant, Lobbyist, Nevada Catholic Conference
Chairman Amodei:
I will open the hearing with the work session using the Work Session Document (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.). The first bill to be considered will be Senate Bill (S.B.) 38.
SENATE BILL 38: Makes various changes regarding certain acts relating to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, biological agents, chemical agents, radioactive agents and other lethal agents, toxins and delivery systems. (BDR 15-89)
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst:
During testimony on S.B. 38 there were a number of concerns expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union and interested parties, as well as Senators Care and Titus, who offered some amendments. The result of the concerns is a “Compilation of Proposed Amendments to Senate Bill No. 38,” prepared by Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, under tab B of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C). The amendments point out where S.B. 38 is amended, specifically sections 1, 6, 7, 14, 15, 20, and 23. Those are briefly highlighted on page 2 of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) as to what each amendment accomplishes. In some cases there are two options, such as section 23, and the committee may choose either of the two options.
Chairman Amodei:
Based on the nature of the amendments I will give the committee members more time to consider them.
The work session is closed on S.B. 38 and opened on S.B. 74.
SENATE BILL 74: Authorizes person who holds permit to carry concealed firearm issued by another state to carry concealed firearm in this state under certain circumstances. (BDR 15-760)
Chairman Amodei:
Is there a motion on S.B. 74? No motion is forthcoming; therefore, the work session is closed on S.B. 74 and opened on S.B. 207.
SENATE BILL 207: Makes various changes concerning conveyances of property and wills and estates. (BDR 10-940)
Chairman Amodei:
Is there an amendment on S.B. 207?
Mr. Anthony:
There is an amendment on S.B. 207 under tab D of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C), submitted by Todd L. Torvinen, Lobbyist, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association. Mr. Torvinen specifically notes in the amendment where he agrees with Don W. Ashworth, Probate Commissioner, Eighth Judicial District Court, and where he does not agree. For instance, on the second page of the amendment they were in agreement as to the typographical error in the original bill. There was a disagreement in section 21 of S.B. 207. The committee will have a choice on that matter. Page 3 of the amendment is Mr. Torvinen’s proposed amendment with his desired language, but there was disagreement on it.
Senator Care:
Did the probate commissioner and Mr. Torvinen disagree only on sections 21 and 22 of S.B. 207?
Mr. Anthony:
I misspoke on that. The disagreement was in relation to section 19 of S.B. 207 regarding the 60 days.
Senator Care:
Is section 19 of S.B. 207 the only discrepancy between Mr. Ashworth and Mr. Torvinen?
Mr. Anthony:
Yes, that is my understanding.
Senator Care:
I suggest we amend and do pass S.B. 207 with the amendment being all of tab D of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) with the exception of the proposed language in section 19. My reason is, although Mr. Torvinen is competent, I would be reluctant to take on the probate commissioner. These things are normally well thought out and should the parties not be happy it can be worked out on the Assembly side.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 207.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NOLAN AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
The next bill to be considered in work session is S.B. 269.
SENATE BILL 269: Provides that reduction of 25 percent or more in gross monthly income of person who is ordered to pay alimony or who is subject to order for support of child shall be deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring modification of payments of alimony or order for support of child. (BDR 11-1068)
Chairman Amodei:
There is an amendment at tab E in the Work Session Document (Exhibit C) that covers concerns of the individuals who testified in regards to requiring a court order changing the percentage from 25 percent to 20 percent, and adding the fact the court must change it as opposed to the circumstances.
SENATOR WASHINGTON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 269.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS NOLAN AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
I will open the work session on S.B. 298.
SENATE BILL 298: Makes various changes to provisions pertaining to business. (BDR 7-987)
Chairman Amodei:
There are proposed amendments from the secretary of state at tab F and Clark County at tab G of the Work Session Document (Exhibit C).
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 298.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
The work session is closed. The hearing is open on S.B. 315.
SENATE BILL 315: Prohibits placing of cigarette vending machines where minors are permitted to loiter. (BDR 15-435)
John Albrecht, Chief Tobacco Counsel, Office of the Attorney General:
Senate Bill 315 was proposed as a small, but necessary step to help protect underage youth from tobacco products. The bill proposes to ban cigarette vending machines except in adults-only areas. There are two areas in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 202.2494 where children are prohibited from loitering, which are gaming and bar areas. I worked with the tobacco enforcement program during the last 7 years and was assigned the responsibility of checking cigarette vending machines which are one of the most easily accessible areas of sources of tobacco for minors. Currently the policy is to conduct a check on a cigarette vending machine and then ask the business to move the machine to an adults-only area, such as a gaming or bar area. For the most part businesses are cooperative. After 6 months or a year we revisit to confirm the business actually moved the machine to a gaming or bar area. We can identify only 10 to 20 cigarette vending machines currently accessible to anyone under the age of 21. Senate Bill 315 would eliminate those cigarette vending machines as well.
Information obtained through a youth tobacco survey demonstrated children still use vending machines. For example, the youth buy rate at accessible vending machines is 55 percent versus 12 percent at over‑the‑counter outlets. Children can easily access the machines. Depending upon the survey, somewhere between 8 percent and 19 percent of high school children and about 53 percent of middle school children who buy cigarettes purchase them from cigarette vending machines. Therefore, it remains a significant problem despite voluntary efforts by businesses and the Office of the Attorney General to solve it.
We propose to clarify S.B. 315. As currently worded it would seem to allow a business to say it has a policy of prohibiting children from loitering in an area, therefore, we can place a vending machine there. The Office of the Attorney General proposes it be clarified by either adding the words “by law” after the word “area” to clarify it is by law that children are prohibited from loitering, or the second version, in my memorandum to the committee (Exhibit D), which clearly says a cigarette vending machine must not be placed in a public area except in bars or gaming areas.
Senator Care:
How does S.B. 315 affect areas not included in the prohibitive places in the original version of NRS 202.2494? For example, paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of NRS 202.2491 is a public building and paragraph (d) of subsection 1 of NRS 202.2491 is a hotel or motel. How are public buildings and hotels or motels affected under the proposed amendment to S.B. 315? A hotel or motel could be a licensee and have areas where a child is not permitted to loiter, however, there are other parts of a hotel or motel, as well as a resort, that do not have gambling. Presumably a 20-year-old could loiter anywhere with the exception of the bar.
Mr. Albrecht:
Senate Bill 315 would prohibit cigarette vending machines anywhere except in gaming and bar areas in a major resort with gaming. There would still be cigarette vending machines in gaming and bar areas. I emphasize that hotels or motels in the State will generally have over-the-counter cigarettes available. There is usually a gift shop or newspaper and magazine stand where cigarettes may be purchased with a face-to-face meeting with the customer. Therefore, cigarettes would still be available in resorts.
I am aware of two resorts without gaming in Las Vegas with gift shops that sell cigarettes over the counter, but do not currently have cigarette vending machines. Senate Bill 315 does not prohibit the selling of cigarettes or other tobacco products; however, they must be purchased with a face-to-face encounter except for adults-only areas.
Anthony M. Bandiero, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association:
We definitely support S.B. 315. We think it makes it easier for retailers to restrict underage cigarette sales. We would actually be in support of a complete ban on cigarette vending machines. Face-to-face cigarette sales would eliminate a lot of underage purchasing. We are completely against minors having cigarettes and feel S.B. 315 is a step in the right direction.
Senator Care:
Where are cigarette vending machines found?
Mr. Albrecht:
Cigarette vending machines are found in gaming areas although some resorts have chosen to use cocktail servers to sell them. They are found in some bars. The 10 to 20 cigarette vending machines located outside bars, such as a sports bar with a bar and restaurant in two separate rooms, will place the cigarette vending machine in an alcove between the two. We cannot persuade one particular place to put the cigarette vending machine in the bar. Therefore, we continue to have compliance checks, but our gentle persuasion has not worked. We are not heavy handed and try to encourage the establishment to move the cigarette vending machines to bar and gaming areas and there will be no further checks. The entities are configured many different ways, such as a doughnut shop. We just want cigarette vending machines moved out and be done with them. There are over 2000 tobacco retail outlets in Nevada where cigarettes can be purchased over the counter.
Senator Care:
Is an amendment needed to say with enactment of S.B. 315 any contract between a doughnut shop, for example, and the vendor is void? I am not sure whether the arrangement between them is informal or a written contract.
Mr. Albrecht:
I do not think such an amendment is needed. It will take several months for S.B. 315 to take effect. We would be happy to inform establishments with cigarette vending machines that S.B. 315 passed, was signed by the Governor, and will take effect October 1, or January 1, or whatever is decided by the committee, and they must move cigarette vending machines to their gaming areas.
Chairman Amodei:
On your proposed amendments there is an “or” situation. I am trying to determine on S.B. 315 where you would insert the words “by law.”
Mr. Albrecht:
It is in the second sentence of the second part of the amendment. I believe the second version of the amendment would be clearer and more explicit.
Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, Clark County Health District:
We support S.B. 315, particularly the new amendment.
Paulinus Alaribe:
I am a student of the University of Nevada, Reno and support S.B. 315 in order to prohibit cigarette vending machines where minors loiter. Why do minors smoke? They smoke because they think it is cool, or to lose weight, or it is sociable, or it is fun. When they start smoking, they become addicted which causes health risks and they must see a doctor more often than minors who do not smoke. Teenage smokers are more likely to see a doctor for psychological problems than nonsmokers. Their lungs and hearts cost insurance companies and the government a lot of money to take care of the problem. The parents of teenage smokers also suffer. They see their children sick in bed and in the hospital rather than in school due to illnesses caused by smoking.
Recently tobacco manufacturers have received fines because statistics have shown smoking causes many health problems. Why do we put cigarette vending machines where minors loiter? It is not a good idea to put cigarette vending machines where minors have access to them. Having seen the problems that cigarette smoking causes, I think we should not in any way allow minors to smoke because they will be our official leaders someday. We do not want them sick in the hospital instead of doing the work they are elected to do. When they start smoking, they become addicted and do not have money to buy cigarettes. What happens? They start stealing money from parents or friends which causes them to have some type of deviant behavior. This is not what our society needs.
Some minors sell their bodies in order to get money to support their bad habits. This is morally wrong. I have children growing up right now and I do not want them sick in bed because they are smoking. I would like them to grow up physically and mentally healthy so they will be able to do what they are supposed to do as adults.
I have seen many minors going to school with cigarette in hand. Many of them are 10, 11, and 12 years old. How did they get cigarettes? They get them from cigarette vending machines because they are accessible. We must find a way to prevent our children from getting sick. Insurance companies are complaining about how much money is spent on health care. Supporting the government ban on cigarette vending machines where minors loiter will help prevent children from getting sick and parents suffering because of children smoking.
Buffy Gail Martin, Lobbyist, American Cancer Society-Reno:
We support S.B. 315 with the proposed amendment.
Senator Care:
I would move to amend and do pass S.B. 315 using the second amendment submitted by Mr. Albrecht on behalf of the Office of the Attorney General.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 315.
SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Washington:
Which one was the second amendment?
Chairman Amodei:
It was number 2 after the word “OR.”
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR NOLAN WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
The hearing is open on S.B. 339.
SENATE BILL 339: Makes various changes relating to use of tobacco products. (BDR 15-1126)
Mr. Albrecht:
We have no position on S.B. 339. We distributed a letter (Exhibit E) asking that children who assist in conducting inspections be explicitly exempted from the bill. It would help us recruit and maintain youth employees. Unless it is explicit in the bill, a retail clerk may mistakenly detain a youth who is employed as an investigator or peace officer. When disclosed that a peace officer is present and the youth must be released, there have been problems in rural areas where the store has disputed the disclosure. I am concerned a misunderstanding clerk might hold the child, despite the presence of a badged investigator asking the child be released, resulting in tort liability between child and store. Senate Bill 339, as written, says the child will be released immediately to a peace officer.
I would like to add a proposed amendment saying youths assisting in compliance checks cannot be charged with, detained under, or convicted of fraudulently misrepresenting their age. In that event, the situation would be handled as a personnel problem, not a criminal problem.
There was an incident in which a youth misstated his age and mislead the store clerk. When the investigator learned of it, they reentered the store, returned the cigarettes, got the money back, apologized, and counted it as a no purchase by that particular store. The problem was taken care of immediately.
Peter D. Krueger, Lobbyist, Nevada Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association:
This is our third or fourth Legislative Session to consider these similar kinds of bills. You will hear this is criminalization of behavior. At some point in time, as with alcohol, we must come to terms with the fact that youth must take some responsibility. While we support the concept of S.B. 339, we believe section 3 goes way beyond what is necessary for a clerk to detain a youth. In his tobacco stings, Mr. Albrecht points out it does not make sense to put employees in a position of detaining people. However, we believe at some point in time the Legislature must deal with the idea of putting the responsibility for purchasing, using, and possessing tobacco products by underage youth on the books. We encourage going forward with this. It would be a step toward making it a status offense as we discussed two or three Legislative Sessions ago.
Chairman Amodei:
Mr. Krueger, do you have an amendment to S.B. 339?
Mr. Krueger:
My suggested amendment is to delete section 3 of S.B. 339, which is the penalty, and go with sections 1 and 2. I think the part about what a clerk can do is unnecessary. In this case, it is a small step to simply say it is against statute to falsely represent oneself. I do not see how that criminalizes behavior. It does not go as far as I would like it to go to say it is against State statute to buy, possess, or use. I would settle for section 2, consider it a victory, and go home.
Senator Care:
If we accept the proposed amendment, would it offer a defense to a vendor who sells to a minor if the minor lied about his or her age? Mr. Krueger suggested deleting section 3 of S.B. 339, and leaving section 2 which says, “A child under the age of 18 years shall not falsely represent that he is 18 years of age or older … .” My question is, if that is put into statute, would it relieve the convenience store clerk from even having to ask? You have to ask the age. It would seem to me the convenience store clerk at that point could simply say he or she relied upon what he was told. I am not sure we want to do that. You still want to have the duty to demand and see the identification (ID).
Mr. Albrecht:
The compliance check format has specific requirements wherein if the clerk asks the age of the youth, we have to tell the truth. If the clerk asks for an ID, we present the youth’s own ID showing he or she is under age 18 by birth date, and it also says generally a minor driver under 18, or will not be 18 until 2005. There is not only the birth date, but other textural indications on the identification card that show the person to be under 18. Therefore, our youths would never falsely present ID. I have not observed a person under the age of 18 purchasing tobacco who is not one of our children. This is a different world for me, but in that context, if the underage youth would tell the clerk he or she is truly 18, then he or she would be falsely representing. If a sale occurred in that transaction, the Office of the Attorney General would not prosecute anybody because we would not be there. I think you could do what Mr. Krueger suggests and just say a person who falsely represents himself or herself to be 18 years of age or over could be charged with a misdemeanor. That is all you are saying. I think it could be done.
Senator Care:
I want to be sure it would not relieve the duty of the convenience store clerk to ascertain to a certainty the age of a child who might appear 27 years old.
Mr. Albrecht:
I think of a 12-year-old with no meat on his bones and no hair on his face who stands there and says he is 18 years old. I do not think that would exclude the clerk or the store from being charged with selling to someone under 18 years of age.
Mr. Krueger:
That is not my intention. I would be happy to draw some specific language to clarify that issue if the committee is interested. Perhaps it could be the first step to putting responsibility where it belongs. No way, Senator Care, am I looking to provide additional defense, alibis, or excuses for store personnel.
Senator Care:
I want the record to reflect it was not my intention to hint you were. I know you better than that. When fooling around with these statutes, we must keep in mind the consequences on other existing statutes.
Senator Titus:
Do we really need this bill? What is the current rule for misrepresenting your age or pretending to be something you are not?
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel:
The rule is it is not a delinquent act.
Senator Titus:
I do not mean just for cigarettes. In general, can you lie about your age? I guess a lot of people lie about their age.
Mr. Wilkinson:
There are prohibitions on presenting false identification for purchasing alcohol and that sort of thing.
Ronald P. Dreher, Lobbyist, Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada (PORAN):
I oppose S.B. 339 in a certain way and support it in another. Obviously we support sections 1 and 2 of S.B. 339. Section 3 of S.B. 339 has some problems. To give you an example, a lot of cases in which people enter stores to shoplift, steal, misrepresent, and so forth, put pressure on a clerk to take action. Clerks given the power to take a person into custody are subject to tremendous safety concerns.
Several years ago, an off-duty Reno police officer was working at a Safeway store in northwest Reno. An individual came in and stole a carton of cigarettes. When confronted outside the store by the officer, the individual pulled a gun and shot the officer. The officer, in turn, shot the individual and killed him. If we give power to a clerk in a store to apprehend, or take a position that part of his or her job duty and responsibility is to take a person into custody who has falsely identified himself or herself as an adult to buy cigarettes, we are putting safety concerns on the clerk and the business. That is the part we oppose.
Currently in the city of Reno, when a person is detained by security in clubs or stores for shoplifting, trespassing, and the like, there is approximately a 2-hour delay for response by a police officer. Picture a clerk in a convenience store attempting to take a child 18 years old or under into custody and holding him or her for a couple of hours while awaiting a police officer to take custody for a citizen’s arrest. There are major problems with it.
In that respect, I want to go on record on behalf of the peace officers of Nevada in opposition to section 3 of S.B. 339. However, section 1 of S.B. 339 should be retained. With that in mind, we support sections 1 and 2 of S.B. 339, and oppose section 3 of S.B. 339.
Senator Washington:
Are you saying a minor being detained by a store clerk could potentially turn into a violent situation? Does it ever happen?
Mr. Dreher:
That is correct. In actual television videos showing violent police actions, the majority of situations occur in convenience stores when somebody is trying to apprehend a person either shoplifting or attempting a robbery. It is a potentially dangerous situation to the individual trying to apprehend the offender. There is a bill that addresses the psychological aspects of a child. A child does not see the consequences of his or her act, which is one aspect. It poses a violent situation to the clerk. When given power to apprehend an offender, sometimes the power goes to people’s heads and they think they can take the law into their own hands, which can put them in jeopardy.
Senator Washington:
Let us suppose we enact S.B. 339 with section 3 intact. A person under age 18 falsifies his or her age and attempts to purchase cigarettes. The merchant decides not to detain the offender due to potential violence or his safety. In that event, would the merchant be in violation of the statute?
Mr. Dreher:
No. The statute says the merchant has the right to detain the offender, it does not say they are required to detain.
Senator Care:
We have not addressed a situation wherein a person says he or she is 20 years old and, in fact, really is 20 years old. Let us say a person comes into the store to purchase a carton of milk and cigarettes and his wife is waiting at home for his return. The man might not go quietly into the back room to be detained.
Mr. Dreher:
You are correct. Section 3 of S.B. 339 says a merchant who has reason to believe a person is 18 years old or under; therefore, just because the merchant perceives the person is less than 18 years of age and falsified his or her age, the merchant can detain him or her and create a violent or unsafe situation for him or herself. It could happen. After a 2-hour wait a police officer would handle the situation, however, the merchant would detain the perceived offender until then. There are many problems associated with it.
Ms. Foley:
We support section 2 of S.B. 339; however, section 3 of S.B. 339 has many problems and we would not support the bill should it remain. There has always been a responsibility on the store clerk, but much less so on the child who falsely identifies himself or herself as being of age. We think it would be good to pass S.B. 339 as amended.
Chairman Amodei:
The hearing on S.B. 339 is closed and the hearing on S.B. 267 is open.
SENATE BILL 267: Allows adoptee who is 18 years of age or older to access files and records of proceedings concerning his adoption or birth and eliminates State Register for Adoptions. (BDR 11-1066)
Caroline Follis, Nevada Open:
Nevada Open comes to you today as a coalition of birth parents, adoptees, adoptive parents, and adoptive professionals, gathered in support of S.B. 267. We present letters in support from national and regional organizations in the field of child advocacy and the adoption community. Professor Annette R. Appell, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, planned to testify before you this morning via videoconference, however, due to technical difficulties she was unable to attend and I will read part of her testimony (Exhibit F) into the record on her behalf before presenting my own testimony.
I appreciate Professor Appell putting the presentation together. She did so to provide you with the legal background and some of her comments regarding it. I am an attorney, however, I am not present in a legal capacity or to give any type of legal opinion. I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit G).
Sandy Hellman, Vice President, Northeastern Nevada Foster Parents Association:
I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit H).
Jean M. Uhrich, Nevada Open, Bastard Nation:
I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit I. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Emil DeJan, M.P.H., Chief, Bureau of Health Planning and Statistics, Health Division, Department of Human Resources:
The Bureau of Health Planning and Statistics contains both the Center for Health Data and Research and the State Office of Vital Records. The center uses over 25 health databases to prepare health statistics for the State of Nevada, with two of the principal databases being the birth and death registries collected by the Office of Vital Records. The Office of Vital Records maintains and protects all State vital records, including births, deaths, fetal deaths, adoptions, paternities, marriages, and divorces. Under current law, Nevada, like most states, maintains sealed files on adoptions and related birth records unless opened for inspection by the court. Senate Bill 267 allows a person who is over the age of 18 to access sealed records of adoption if he or she was the subject of the adoption proceedings. The Health Division believes we will be able to implement the requirements as outlined in S.B. 267 with no additional resources. We also understand there are proposed amendments that would allow copying of those records and setting up a fee schedule for unsealing and copying records, and we obviously support those amendments.
Patricia A. Glenn, Lobbyist, Nevada Right-to-Life:
I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit J).
Senator Care:
Please walk me through the process of confidentiality. I am confused on who makes the promise, who is authorized to make the promise, what the promise really is, whether the promise is written or oral, and, finally, is anybody really bound by the promise? How is the promise handled by the Pro-Life League of Nevada?
Ms. Glenn:
We are not an adoption agency; therefore, I do not know the details of the promise. I know many young girls with whom we have dealt over the last 30 years have wanted confidentiality. In later years, girls have opted for open adoption and wish to choose the adoptive parents. There is open communication between the girl who places her baby and the adoptive family. We are concerned about young women who were promised confidentiality in past years. Perhaps it was not a valid promise and some of the girls were mislead; however, they understood their privacy would be protected. They wanted to go on with their lives, which is the reason they chose adoption rather than raising the baby. The young women have gone on with their lives and would be intruded upon. Perhaps their present husband does not know they had a child. Perhaps the birth mother did not want anyone to know the identity of the father. I think these are legitimate concerns. We do not object, for instance, to passport revision and the sort of thing that would affect the young woman. We are only concerned about those who want to be kept confidential. What other vehicle is there to preserve confidentiality should the adoption registry be abolished?
Senator Care:
I am concerned about the circumstances under which the promise of confidentiality is made.
Ms. Glenn:
I guess we all will have to catch up on the circumstances. Apparently in some years they were promised confidentiality and others not. As a general rule, we are concerned S.B. 267 does not throw out the baby with the bath water. Those who counted on confidentiality should have it protected.
Janet Nordine, Nevada Open:
I will read my prepared testimony in support of S.B. 267 (Exhibit K. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Richard Rinker:
I will read my prepared testimony in favor of S.B. 267 (Exhibit L. Original is on file in the Research Library.).
Paula Long, Nevada Open:
I am an adult adoptee. I was born, relinquished, and adopted through Washoe County in Nevada. I am currently in a reunion for which I am not prepared per a court order by Judge Scott Jordan, Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, who asked that a confidential intermediary contact my birth family so I could open my records. However, my records are still not available to me, are still sealed, and I am not allowed to look at them, make copies of them, or have my original birth certificate. I ask you to pass S.B. 267 and abolish the registry because it is not valid nor a good option. Not all adoptees are ready for or desire a reunion. I only want my records.
In regard to Senator Care’s question, birth parents should never have been promised confidentiality. Records were opened to all citizens of Nevada and by court order. There is no confidentiality because the records could be opened by anyone.
Senator Wiener:
Would you elucidate on the reunion for which you are unprepared.
Ms. Long:
When I petitioned the court 2 years ago, I asked that my records be unsealed and a copy provided me. Judge Jordan sent my case to a confidential intermediary who contacted my birth family asking whether or not I could have my birth records. Currently, there is no set standard on how to petition the court. In Washoe County, a general motion packet is filled out, turned in, and filed. I believe it was Judge Jordan’s interpretation the parties to the action were my adoptive, as well as my birth parents. I had to send a letter to my adoptive parents, as well as a copy of the petition, informing them I was petitioning the court to open my records. Judge Jordan saw the birth parents as the other party and contacted them. My birth mother is dead, but the confidential intermediary contacted my grandfather, aunts, and uncles. I was not ready for a reunion. I think it should be my decision regarding when I am ready. When I am ready, I should have the option to contact them myself or have another person contact them for me. I am in contact with my birth family now. I am taking it slowly because I need information, time to digest it, and contact them when I feel ready.
Senator Wiener:
So it is not just birth parents, it is whatever the court perceives as the birth family. Did you receive any information regarding your birth father?
Ms. Long:
I have no information on my birth father. The confidential intermediary set that information aside. I was provided my relinquishment papers and some information on my birth mother. The remainder of my file cannot be seen because the confidential intermediary could not find my birth father. I do not know whether I want contact with him; however, I would like to know who he is. Do I want contact with this man? Do I want contact with my birth family at all? There is a matter of personal safety. Does he have a criminal record? Am I ready for contact? There are so many things to take into consideration when going into a reunion, and not all adoptees want reunion. I did not want a reunion when I petitioned, I only wanted my records.
Senator Wiener:
Were you notified before or after contact was made with your birth family?
Ms. Long:
I was notified afterward.
Edward E. Cotton, Administrator, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:
I was adopted at 2 years of age and I have two adopted sons. Adoptive parents tell many different stories. I registered with the registry and have had no contact which is all right with me. We will discuss the mutuality of the matter, joint decisions on whether or not children and parents reunite, and what information will be provided.
Second, I want to point out different ways to deal with the birth certificate problem. My two adopted children and I have traveled to Europe, South America, and Japan with amended birth certificates and never experienced a problem getting back and forth. Now they are adults and have had no problem with the passport issue. There may be something specific in Nevada law separate from this that we could deal with because it is clearly an issue of concern.
I am submitting my written testimony (Exhibit M).
Wanda Scott, Social Welfare Program Specialist, Division of Child and Family Services, Department of Human Resources:
I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit N).
Senator Care:
In regard to the four options you described, how long has it been the practice? I am thinking it is the 1970s, early 1980s, and before.
Ms. Scott:
I do not believe the practice goes back that far, perhaps the early 1990s.
Senator Care:
I appreciate your neutrality on S.B. 267 so I will not ask you to pass judgment on the register. Earlier testimony said the success rate is 4.4 percent. I am unsure what that means. It may mean only 4.4 percent of adult adoptees are able to obtain the information they are seeking. Do you know what a success rate of 4.4 percent means?
Ms. Scott:
During calendar year 2000 our agency received 40 applications from adoptees, almost 200 from birth parents, and 20 from relatives; that year there were 16 matches. I think the registration can happen for any number of reasons. Adoptees, for whatever reason, may elect not to file an application. There are times when families move about, take the application with them, and at some point decide to file. There is some frustration with relatives who may want to file an application, particularly if they cannot find a birth parent who must give written consent or permission for us to act on the application. The percentage is certainly low and it is difficult for me to say why.
Hayley Jarolimek, Licensed Social Worker and Program Specialist, Washoe County Social Services:
I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit O). Currently, information contained in the court file is the original birth certificate, original relinquishment, consent for adoption, and termination of parental rights if applicable. Those documents contain identifying information in our standard and legal procedure. There is also a confidential report written by the social worker which provides a social history of not only the birth parent, but the adoptive parent. That information should be maintained confidential and not seen by anyone. The letter was written specifically to the court and may contain information a child should not read about either one of his or her parents. A court order would specifically identify documents that could be accessed by the child.
Chairman Amodei:
Please provide your suggestions to the committee counsel, Mr. Wilkinson, by Wednesday of next week.
Ms. Jarolimek:
Absolutely. I have copies.
Cynthia Lu, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Office of the Public Defender, Washoe County:
We oppose S.B. 267 in its current form. This is a difficult issue of balancing the interests and rights of children to have access to information and the privacy and interest of birth and adoptive parents. More so, birth parents who wish to remain anonymous or, because of certain circumstances regarding the birth, may want to put that piece of their life into history and not relive it.
I will read my prepared testimony (Exhibit P).
Senator Care:
Sometimes we overlook the people who must live with these things on a daily basis. Would you ask the judges who handle these matters to provide ideas on the type of standards the court should consider? It is vague, as everyone has pointed out. I dislike doing something and later hearing from the bench that we forgot this and that. Sometimes we do not give these matters as much scrutiny as we should.
Ms. Lu:
I am unable to provide criteria the court would use, however, I will ask the judges about it. I corresponded with Judge Deborah E. Schumacher, Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, about S.B. 267. We did not talk about specific guidelines, but I would be happy to discuss that aspect with her. She had concerns about the retroactiveness of S.B. 267 and whether it could open all adoption cases. I will provide the information to the committee.
Senator Wiener:
Ms. Scott mentioned four states that utilize disclosure vetoes in different variations in which a person can change information at any time on the registry. Do you offer a client the opportunity to come back and receive information in order to provide two-way communication sometime in the future?
Ms. Lu:
We discuss that with our clients. These are very difficult decisions for people to make. Going through the relinquishment process or discussing termination of parental rights is the emotional point of the case. When clients sign, they are told we keep our own files with copies of all papers, the State register, a form, and microfiche. They can call us anytime after the fact should they need the information or a copy of anything they may have misplaced or lost. I have been with the public defender’s office for over 8 years and clients have contacted me after the fact to get the information, and the information was provided to them. Many times clients later call back to ask questions they did not ask the first time due to their emotional state.
Senator Wiener:
Can clients come back, ask to be on the registry, and have the opportunity in 18 years to make contact?
Ms. Lu:
Absolutely. We have clients who do not choose to fill out the form. We insist they take the form in the event they want to fill it out any time after the fact and send it in. The other benefit of state registers, as indicated by Ms. Scott, is extended family members and grandparents can register as well. Therefore, even if the birth parents emotionally decide they cannot do it, their extended family can access the service. For that reason it is important to have the service in place for a large segment of the population.
Travis Baer, Latter Day Saints (LDS) Family Services:
I am a licensed clinical social worker and represent LDS Family Services. We are a licensed adoption agency that provides adoption services to citizens of the State of Nevada, as well as counseling services. I would like to introduce a birth mother with whom I work who will share her thoughts on S.B. 267.
Amelia D. Keele:
I grew up in Fallon, go to Truckee Meadows City College (TMCC), live in Sparks, and work full time. I placed my son for adoption 2 years and 3 months ago. I chose a semi-open adoption and chose the family. I met Mike and Carol and their adopted daughter, Katlynn, before I had my baby. After I gave birth to my son, Logan, I took him home for the 72 hours allowed by Nevada, and then placed him with Mike and Carol. It was very emotional. We shared much information, but no identifying information. They have the medical background of the birth father and myself which provided a complete medical history for our son.
I filled out the adoption registry form the day I relinquished my rights, as did the birth father, with the understanding we wanted to be identified to our son when he is ready. We are confident all our identifying information will be withheld. I received letters and picture updates once a month for the first year as agreed upon. Now it is once a year. When he turns 3 years of age the pictures will end, but the letters will continue as long as we need or desire them. When Logan is old enough, he can send letters to me if he so chooses.
I am against S.B. 267 and the amendments. There are women who, for whatever reason, do not want to be known. They have moved on and it is no longer a part of their lives. Identifying information should be withheld. Anything that will help medically should be given to any adoptee. I relinquished my son to give him something better than I could provide as a single mother. Although the birth father was in my life, we would have to share him because there was no way we would ever be married.
Our son has a mother, a father, and an older sister who he adores. He is part of that family. He is not mine. He is theirs. I will be a friend to him when he is older. He knows who I am. He has pictures. He has a quilt made by my grandmother, my mother, my father, and myself, that was sent home with him. Those are his parents. I am his birth mother and related to him genetically, that is all.
If he desires at whatever age to contact me, it will be his right. I chose for him to have the right to contact me and know who I am; however, it should not be forced on him. If you choose to pass S.B. 267 as is, please do not make it retroactive because it could destroy many lives.
Helen Foley:
I represent myself, as well as Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada on a pro bono basis. Complete openness of records could divulge many things simply not necessary. I understand concerns about birth records and the birth certificate, and Catholic Charities does not have a problem with access to the original birth certificate at the age of 18; however, they have severe concerns about all other information in the court record. If the mother was raped, or was a prostitute and there could have been multiple putative fathers, it would all be in the records. If the adoptive parents had gone through bankruptcies, or if there was some type of criminal activity for smoking marijuana, and so forth, it would all be in the records. Catholic Charities and myself believe it unnecessary to share such information with an 18-year-old child. If birth parents and child lived together, the parents would not be required to reveal all the gory details about their lives to their child. Under the strictest interpretation of the language, the whole record would be unsealed and revealed to the child. We definitely oppose that.
We support the State register and would like to leave it at that. Opening the birth record would be appropriate. However, there might be an imaginary situation in which, perhaps, a 40-year-old adoptee seeks out his or her 68‑year‑old birth mother who now has grandchildren and never told her husband or children this occurred when she was 17 years old. It could be very damaging to people especially if they do not want it ever revealed. I like many of the comments made by Washoe County in allowing parents explicit authority to veto that kind of contact or disclosure.
Alisha A. Peterson:
I graduated from Churchill County High School in 2000 and then attended Southern Utah University. In October 2000, my freshman year, I was raped and consequently impregnated. I chose to return home to my support circle and go through adoption because the baby would not have a father. I chose semi-open adoption and was able to gain control of my life. After being raped and impregnated I lost control of everything. With adoption I felt I gained control of my life again.
With semi-open adoption I was able to choose the family, meet them, discuss our ethics, our values, and how the child should be raised. The adoptive family met my parents. Since the child would be biracial my choices were limited, but, once again, I was able to gain control. I was presented with the registry option, which I signed. I support the registry completely. I also realize and sympathize with other survivors of incest or rape who might not want the child to be part of their lives. The birth father’s records are not there.
Should S.B. 267 pass, I understand my son, Jaden, would be able to access all the records. Although I chose not to have him a part of my life, with the registry my son would have the choice to have me in his life should he so desire. I feel other survivors’ choices are taken away and they have lost control. They will not be able to keep their records sealed because it will be completely open. I think adoption is for the best interests of the child, as well as the birth parent.
Mr. Baer:
Latter Day Saints Family Services opposes S.B. 267 because it is too broad and goes too far. The situation of adoption arises from a difficult choice under difficult circumstances. The young women face a tough choice, yet it reflects their ability to determine their right to privacy. There are some unique circumstances in which the right to privacy should prevail, such as rape or incest. There was the case of a birth father involved in an affair who wanted to remain married to his wife, put the marriage back together, and retain his right of privacy. An example in which S.B. 267 would not be culturally sensitive was the case of a married birth mother of East Indian descent who became impregnated by another individual. Both she and her husband wanted to remain married and worked through the situation. They were very careful of their privacy. She explained, should the information be divulged to either of their families, it would destroy them both culturally and socially. There are unique circumstances in which the right of privacy should prevail.
Essentially, adoption is a difficult choice and should be respected and honored. I have the utmost respect and admiration for those who make the choice because it is a willing choice and considers the best interests of the child. Conversely, S.B. 267 would allow a unilateral choice by an adoptee to gain access to identifying information, whereas the birth mother or father may determine the right to privacy is in their best interest. Recommendations have been made to modify the language of the bill. We fully support the need for an adoptee to have access to information, medical and otherwise, that would help them. We agree with the right to choice on both sides. We oppose S.B. 267.
Christy Brad Escobar, Families Supporting Adoption:
I submitted my written testimony (Exhibit Q), but will not read it aloud; however, I will make some comments in regard to S.B. 267. I adopted two children in a traditional adoption where, in each case, the birth mother selected us, but did not want face-to-face meetings. After 6 months of letters, one birth mother did not want any more contact. The person who impregnated her had moved on, she married the person who supported her through the pregnancy, they had a child, and she simply did not want contact. That right should be respected. Senate Bill 267 does not respect that right.
Perhaps one of the ways the registry could be strengthened to facilitate some of the issues raised today would be to allow natural parents, at the time they register with the registry, to consent. This would allow people within the third degree of consanguinity the opportunity to search if they so desire. Later in life they will not have to find the birth mother if they are part of the birth‑parent family. It can be handled at the time they register. It might strengthen the registry. I believe the registry does take choice into consideration. It is appropriate for this committee to consider choice. As an adoptive family, I do not know what my children’s desires will be when they reach 18. I think they should have a choice, but the natural parent’s choice should also be respected.
Kristie Traver:
I am in support of S.B. 267. I have an amendment (Exhibit R) that may make opposing parties more comfortable with the legislation. This committee has a difficult job. For all adoptees who say they want access to their records, there are others who say they do not. For every birth mother who says she was promised at 18 years of age her child would be allowed to locate her, there are others who were promised the opposite. Where do you strike the balance?
Adoption practice in Nevada has come a long way. The number of open adoptions has made a number of options available. People who are looking at this practice realize it is a lot more open than in the past. There is still a generation of individuals who have to live under the old system. Some amendments brought forth do not recognize the fact prior practices are no longer recognized as best and force those individuals to live under a system that may not be as equitable. We still have to strike a balance. Our view is adoptees have a civil right to access their original birth certificates, but how are the rights of birth parents protected who were promised, perhaps falsely, they would remain anonymous their entire lives?
Other states with open records were mentioned. Kansas and Alaska never sealed their records and have no other system in place. Two states that meet the needs of both parties are Oregon and Alabama. Those two states have what is called a contact preference form which recognizes the rights of adult adoptees to access their original birth information, but also recognizes the right of birth parents to choose whether or not they are contacted. The two issues are separate, but we know people will use the information to attempt a search; not everyone, but some.
The contact preference form, established in Oregon and Alabama, is current and past birth parents are given the opportunity to notify the state what type of contact, if any, they want. They receive a form with three boxes to check: one, they want contact; two, they want contact, but with mediation; and three, they do not want contact, but they will provide their updated medical information. When an adoptee goes to vital statistics and requests their original birth certificate, the contact preference form is given to them.
I am an adoptee and the thing that scares me most about searching is the prospect of confronting, or sending a letter to someone, and being completely rejected. Should I have information available to me on a contact preference form stating, “No, your birth parent does not want any contact with you,” it would hurt, but it would hurt less than having it said to my face. I am still able to exercise my right as an equal citizen under the law in getting my birth certificate, just like my 8-year-old daughter can get her original birth certificate. It does not force contact on anyone, it provides people with more information, it provides people the chance to have their voices heard, and I think this form is a piece we should consider in Nevada.
Senator Care:
How many adoptions take place yearly in Nevada, and how many Nevadans from age one to whatever are adopted?
Ms. Traver:
I have no firm statistics. Perhaps the Division of Child and Family Services has better statistics. There is an estimate of 200,000 people born and adopted in Nevada, both current and deceased.
Senator Washington:
Is the contact preference form retroactive?
Ms. Traver:
Yes. When records were sealed in 1973, it was done retroactively. This would be as well. It would give people the opportunity to state their needs. Keep in mind that open adoption with ongoing contact is relatively new in adoption history and only came into vogue in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Previous adoption practice gave no other choice but sealed records, therefore, people going into it were not given those types of options. The contact preference form gives them an opportunity to choose what they want.
Opinions change over time. When I was very young, my adoptive parents became upset when I asked questions about my background. At this point in time they overflow with information any time I ask a question. We must recognize attitudes have changed. The contact preference form can be updated at any time and people may change their minds as they go along.
Senator Washington:
Prospectively in the future, should I relinquish a child for adoption, I can sign the contact preference form and change my mind later to either disclose or not disclose information.
Ms. Traver:
If a child is relinquished and the birth parent feels she never wants contact, she can change her mind 15 years later and go back and change the contact preference form.
Senator Washington:
How does it affect adoptive parents? Are they part of this procedure or excluded?
Ms. Traver:
The ability to access vital records and statistics would not be available to the adoptee until they turn 18 years of age and are legally recognized as an adult, therefore, adoptive parents are not in the equation. It is with no small amount of concern adoptees look at this, because one of their primary concerns is hurting their adoptive parents. I think providing this kind of system gives those parents an opportunity to talk openly, as most do today, about this process with their children.
Senator Washington:
There are some adoptive parents who still want exclusivity or disclosure kept intact.
Ms. Traver:
I have wondered about that. I have an 8-year-old daughter and have some strong feelings about what she should or should not be able to do at this point. At what point does she become able to make her own decisions about things? In this instance, it is not information about the adoptive parents, it would be the original birth certificate. To whom does that information belong? I would like to tell my daughter at 8 years of age she will never be able to do certain things, such as driving a Ford vehicle, but that is not an option for me when she turns 18. She may run right out and buy a Ford.
Senator Washington:
You are saying age 18 is the determining point or criteria at which the parent‑child relationship is changed to an adult-adult relationship.
Ms. Traver:
It is the age at which individuals are considered legal adults in Nevada.
Alicia Smalley, Lobbyist, Legislative Chair, National Association of Social Workers-Nevada:
I submitted a letter from Mark J. Nichols, executive director, National Association of Social Workers (NASW) (Exhibit S). We have a national policy that promotes openness in adoption practices; therefore, I want to be on record the NASW supports S.B. 267. However, in lieu of Nevada’s issues, we are in favor of the amendments proposed by Washoe County.
Della Shores, Nevada Open:
I will read my prepared written testimony (Exhibit T).
Robert V. Payant, Lobbyist, Nevada Catholic Conference:
Assembly Bill 28 deals with the procedure for parties to enter into an enforceable agreement for post-adoptive contact. It is the open-adoption plan set forth in the statute and I think perhaps you will see it before the Legislative Session is over. It could be part of the same arrangement.
ASSEMBLY BILL 28: Provides procedure for parties to adoption to enter into enforceable agreement for post-adoptive contact. (BDR 11-207)
Mr. Payant:
Many years ago I served as a family court judge in the state of Michigan. For 6 years I handled adoptions in my jurisdiction. During that time promises were made to many young women there would never be disclosure of the fact of their situation. Should a bill like this become law, some of the people promised confidentiality would feel we had broken faith with them. The Nevada Catholic Conference, which I represent, is opposed to S.B. 267 in its present form. Should retroactivity be eliminated, it would certainly change things. The fine recommendations from Washoe County should be carefully considered.
Senator Care:
When decisions are made on open and semi-open adoption, and promises made, it is an emotional time and I question whether individuals have the mental capacity to make decisions. In your experience on the bench, did you ever have a case where, in the future, an adopted child or adoptive parent changed his or her mind? A promise was made, an open adoption entered into, and everybody agreed at the time. Were you ever in a position wherein you had to tell a person after 10 years they must stand by and live with that decision, or was it possible to amend it?
Mr. Payant:
It would be an extremely high burden after a period of years to change an adoptive situation. Assembly Bill 28 provides for how changes could be made from the contract initially made at the time of adoption. There would be recognition it could happen.
Senator Washington:
In the 2001 Legislation Session a bill was passed that would speed up and streamline the adoption process. In addition, the federal government passed the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997 which shortened the time for people to make a decision whether or not to put a child up for adoption, from 18 months down to 12 months. Would the passage of A.B. 28 preclude those two provisions? Let us say the courts tell the biological parents that because they did not follow their parental plan, their parental rights are terminated. Then the child comes of age at 18 and decides he or she wants to find his or her biological parents, but the court has already mandated under the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997 that their parental rights have been severed. Would we find ourselves in a quandary in that event, or would A.B. 28 allow the person to search for his or her parents?
Mr. Payant:
Senate Bill 267 addresses ending the registry which would be the source of the information. I would have to consider the matter.
Senator Washington:
If the registry is eliminated, whatever the courts mandated under the provisions of the Adoption and Safe Family Act of 1997 would allow no recourse for the adoptee to find his or her parents.
Mr. Payant:
That is how it seems to me. I do not know why abolishment of the registry is part of Senate Bill 267. It seems to me they could stand together should the bill be passed.
Senator Washington:
Let me ask another hypothetical question. In the 2001 Legislative Session a bill, informally called the “Baby Moses Bill” (S.B. No. 191 of the 71st Session), was passed. Should S.B. 267 be passed in its present form and the registry abolished, would it preclude a child from ever finding his or her parent? On the other hand, should the registry still be in place, would the biological parent be in jeopardy of being exposed?
Mr. Payant:
If the mother who abandons the child is never discovered, the registry would have no information in regard to that person.
Ms. Uhrich:
We interviewed with the State Office of Vital Records and Statistics to better understand the function of the registry. In response to that interview, we created some amendments to S.B. 267 (Exhibit U) to specify the types of copies that would be made of the birth certificate. It would be unamended, original, unaltered, unredacted, and a certified copy in regard to passport difficulties. It would also have a watermark: “Not to be used for identification purposes.” Therefore, although it is a certified copy to meet United States federal standards for proof of citizenship, it would not create a separate identify at the same time we have our amended identities. We set a fee of $20 for the contents of the file. A typographical error was also corrected.
Senator Washington:
What did you think of Ms. Traver’s amendment?
Ms. Uhrich:
I absolutely approve of the contact preference form. It is well used in both Alabama and Oregon. It allows an adoptee to have an express right to their own record, yet allows the birth parent to express their preference for contact.
Mr. Rinker:
I might be able to provide some answers to questions and perhaps rebuttals to points brought out earlier. First, Senator Care asked a question about the success rate of the registry and what 4 percent means. Four percent means of 100 birth parents and adoptees who submit applications, only four make contact, the other 96 sit and wait. It should also be noted the Department of Human Resources refers out to International Soundex Reunion Registry (ISRR). When I made initial contact with the department about registering, I received in the packet a flyer referring me to ISRR, and other adoptees have received the same information.
There have been concerns about retroactive changes to the law. Specifically, when my adoption was done in 1950, the state of the law was I could come back and obtain my adoption records when I achieved the age of majority. The law was changed in 1953 retroactively which eliminated me from one source. Again, in 1973, it shut me out completely. Therefore, retroactive application of changes to the law is not really a big thing. There is precedence for it.
A concern was raised about tiering access to adoptees’ records. Effectively that would create two classes of citizens within a subclass of adoptees. There will be those adoptees born today and into the future who will have access to their records. A subclass of that group would be myself, or people born yesterday, who will not have access to their information. It has been mentioned a person can petition the court. The Indian Child Welfare Act (United States Code, Title 25, chapter 21) mandates the court provide identifying information if it can be proven a person has Indian blood. I have nonidentifying information from the State that indicates my birth mother is of Native American ancestry. I petitioned the court and my petition was denied.
There was some concern from LDS Services that perhaps a birth mother may have been a prostitute, drug user, and so forth. When I researched my information, I started with the knowledge I was born in Wells. I am a retired Los Angeles police officer and aware of prostitutes and things that attend the lifestyle. Therefore, I started off with the assumption my birth mother’s past was somewhat checkered, but it did not deter me. My search was for information. What I choose to do with the information is my business.
There has been talk about preventing unwarranted access by adoptees through their birth parents. I think by giving weight to that concern we prejudge the actions of adoptees. The assumption would be that I, as an adoptee, am going to hound my birth mother, not be respectful of her requests, her background, and the circumstances of my birth or conception. I am trying not to make this testimony personal; however, nothing could be further from the truth. I think we, as a society, must trust our fellow adults to act as adults. If they choose not to act as adults, then, as I testified earlier, criminal and civil remedies are available.
Mr. Escobar:
Should S.B. 267 pass, three of the four present practices of adoption would be done away with and there would be no closed, semi-closed, or semi-open adoptions. There are a number of adoptive parents who chose those types of adoptions rather than open adoption. I think their rights should also be considered. If not, I think many people will not adopt, which would be unfortunate.
Second, to the extent you are able to provide confidentiality to a birth mother, she may choose to go through with an adoption as discussed in various examples. If she cannot have confidentiality, abortion is the only way to have privacy. I prefer seeing children brought into the world and people, such as my wife and I, adopting them, because that is the way we have a family.
Chairman Amodei:
The hearing is closed on S.B. 267. I will allow committee members and staff a few days to digest proposed amendments and testimony, from all sides, to be revisited in a discussion context the last half of next week.
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting is adjourned at 11:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Barbara Moss,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: