►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
B
C
D
A
Here
here
we
have
a
quorum,
so
we
are
going
to
get
started
because
we
have
four
bills
on
today.
Before
we
begin,
I
just
make
several
housekeeping
announcements
for
all
the
individuals
that
are
present
in
our
meeting
room.
Please
keep
your
face
coverings
on
and
maintain
your
social
distancing,
you'll,
see
all
of
our
chairs
are
separated
for
those
of
you
that
are
present
here
today
in
the
committee
room.
A
Additionally,
members
of
our
public
may
continue
to
provide
testimony
in
various
ways,
all
of
which
are
listed
on
the
agenda
and
on
nellis
again
I'll
remind
everyone.
You
may
submit
public
comment
in
writing
in
addition
to
testifying
or
in
lieu
of
testifying,
and
that
written
public
comment
may
be
submitted
before
during
or
up
to
48
afters
48
hours
after
the
meetings
adjournment
and
finally,
if
you
are
in
here,
I
would
ask
you
to
please
silence
your
electronic
devices
cell
phones
and
laptops
and
for
those
of
the
members
that
are
in
here.
A
If
I
can
remind
you
to
mute
your
little
dinging
things,
because
they
will
make
little
bell
noises
and
all
kinds
of
fun
noises
here
during
the
thing
and
with
that
we'll
move
on
to
our
first
agenda
item,
I
will
now
open
the
bill
hearing
on,
let's
see
hold
on
one.
Second,
are
we
going
in
any
particular
way?
A
Okay,
I
will
start
with.
I
don't
see
on
the
zoom
any
of
our
senators
here
yet
to
present
assemblywoman
hanson
are
you
presenting
with
senator
harris
okay.
A
Okay,
perfect,
so
we
will
start
with
senate
bill
21..
This
revises
requirements
relating
to
background
investigations
conducted
by
certain
institutions,
agencies
and
facilities
that
serve
children.
I
believe
mr
armstrong
is
on
our
zoom.
I
see
him
right
up
there,
big
on
the
big
screen,
welcome
to
the
committee
and
please
begin
when
you're
ready.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
it's
great
to
join
you
on
denim
day
at
the
legislature.
Today,
sb
21
started
really
as
a
boring
kind
of
nerdy
government
administrative
bill
to
standardize
the
crimes
that
we
check
in
child
serving
agencies
in
terms
of
background
check
for
hiring
employees
who
are
working
with
vulnerable
populations
in
dcfs.
We
actually
currently
have
three
different
sets
of
rules
about
the
backgrounds
that
can
either
disqualify
or
qualify
an
individual
to
work
on
our
agency,
and
so
we
would
occasionally
get
an
employee
who
wants
to
transfer.
E
You
know,
promote
their
career,
but
they
can't
get
from
one
part
of
the
agency
to
the
other
because
of
these
differing
background
checks.
So
the
original
sb21
just
set
really
to
standardize
the
list
of
exclusionary
crimes
across
the
board
and
then
also
put
some
time
limits,
particularly
on
on
minor
drug
offenses.
We
had
you
know
a
lot
of
folks
that
had
the
minor
drug
charges
and
it
didn't
matter
how
old
they
were,
they
were
excluded
from
working
at
the
agency.
So
that's
what
the
original
bill
did.
E
Then
you
hope
you
get
to
change,
and
so,
as
we
worked
with
stakeholders
throughout
the
process
in
the
other
house,
it
became
clear
that,
when
we're
talking
about
these
child
serving
agencies,
we're
talking
about
agencies
whose
whole
idea
of
existing
is
to
give
folks
a
second
chance,
a
brighter
future,
ahead
of
them
than
what
they
may
be
experiencing
now,
and
that
our
employment
practices
should
reflect
those
core
values
of
our
agencies,
and
so
the
bill
was
amended
so
that
there
is
consistency
in
terms
of
what
crimes
are
checked
across
the
different
parts
of
child
serving
agencies,
but
that
also
giving
each
one
of
those
agencies
the
ability
to
to
do
a
weighing
test
to
determine
if
somebody
does
come
back
with
a
particular
crime
on
their
background
and
the
statute
says
that
they
can
be
excluded,
that
you
can
really
take
a
look
at
each
individual
situation
in
and
away
the
crime.
E
E
You
know
implicit
or
otherwise,
and
so
also
amended
into
the
bill,
is
a
requirement
that
an
agency
that
is
using
that
weighted
test
periodically
checks
the
results
of
that
test
to
make
sure
that
there
aren't,
you
know,
bias
results
in
those
tests,
so
so
we
started
with
just
making
sure
all
the
crimes
were
consistent.
E
We've
added
this
ability
for
agencies
to
waive
that,
and
one
of
the
other
factors
that
really
helped
us
move
in
that
direction
was
that
in
working
with
the
families
and
the
children
that
we
work
with,
there
is
inherent
value
a
lot
of
times
in
lived
experience
and
so
we're
unable
to
hire
folks
who,
because
of
their
own
life
experience,
can
actually
really
help
in
the
rehabilitation
or
the
safety
of
our
children
so
to
run
through
the
actual
sections
of
the
bill.
E
We're
talking
about
three
different
types
of
entities,
really:
juvenile
justice,
detention,
centers
and
facilities,
child
welfare
agencies
and
then
state
operated
mental
health
facilities
for
children.
Some
of
the
things
we
did
across
the
board
too,
including
the
time
limit
on
drug
offenses,
was
to
add
domestic
violence
as
a
as
one
of
the
crimes
to
check
against,
because
we
had
seen
that
that
crime
actually
had
some
behaviors
that
we,
you
know
existing
behaviors
into
the
workplace
that
were
not
good
and
then
in
talking
with
stakeholders.
E
Prostitution
alone
itself
has
been
removed
due
to
the
nature
of
how
that
crime
is
typically
charged.
So
in
the
bill
section
one
and
two
applies
to
those
juvenile
justice
agencies.
Three
and
four
makes
the
adjustment
to
the
child
welfare
agencies.
The
child
welfare
statute
really
had
the
most
comprehensive
list
to
start
with,
and
so
that
really
served
as
the
model
for
the
others.
E
That
would
give
us
sufficient
time
to
implement
the
weighing
test
and
for
the
division
to
provide
any
technical
assistance
to
to
those
local
entities
that
we're
trying
to
do
the
same
thing,
so
that
is
sb
21.
The
main
goal
is
to
have
some
consistency
in
our
background
approach
across
child
serving
agencies
and
then
also
having
an
opportunity
to
take
a
look
at
each
individual
case
to
make
a
determination
of
of
whether
past
criminal
conduct
still
presents
a
potential
risk
to
the
agency
or
the
individuals
they
serve.
E
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
armstrong,
for
your
presentation.
So
if
you
could
just
explain
briefly,
what's
the
current
law.
G
And
then
how
are
we
changing
it?
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you
for
the
question,
so
the
current
law
varies
from
entity
to
or
from
agency
to
agency.
So,
for
example,
in
the
child
welfare
agencies,
they
had
the
greatest
list
of
exclusionary
crimes.
The
juvenile
justice
ones
didn't
have
us
check
for
involuntary
manslaughter
or
require
that
a
felony
you
know,
have
use
of
force
or
threatened
use
of
force,
and
so
what
it
does
is
in
the
mental
health
and
juvenile
justice
statutes.
It
adds
to
that
list.
E
I
would
say
the
biggest
changes
are
the
time
limit
on
drug
offenses,
the
inclusion
of
checking
for
domestic
violence
and
then
the
addition
of
the
sex
crimes
with
the
exception
of
prostitution,
because
we
know
in
a
lot
of
cases
those
are
instances
of
coercion.
There's
charge
that
way,
so
those
are
are
the
big
ones
and
then,
of
course,
as
the
process
went,
the
the
biggest
thing
is
that
right
now,
if
any
of
these
these
crimes
pop
up,
it's
automatic
exclusion,
there's
no
discretion.
E
So
we've
had
cases
where
somebody
was
you
know,
convicted
of
marijuana,
1982
and
they've
been
great
since
and
they
want
to
come
work
at
one
of
our
juvenile
justice
facilities
and
we
have
to
say
no
in
this
case
we
could
weigh
the
length
of
time
that
has
been
and
all
those
individual
factors
and
actually
hire
the
individual
to
work
at
the
agency.
So
that's
the
biggest
one
is
the
way
the
law
works.
Now
is
if,
in
each
of
those
particular
areas,
one
of
those
crimes,
pops
up
they're
borrowed
from
employment.
F
That
we
want
to
give
people
a
second
chance
regarding
drug-related
offenses.
It's
not
possible
with
this
bill
that
someone
who
was
convicted
of
molesting
a
child
or
raping
a
child
would
now
work
in
child
welfare
services.
Correct.
E
That
is,
that
is
correct.
I
would
imagine
that
all
of
the
agencies
that
would
imply
that
weighted
test
would
have
particular
offenses
that,
no
matter
what
the
circumstances
are
would
still
be
prohibited,
in
particular
in
our
juvenile
justice
agencies,
we
have
to
comply
with
the
federal
prison,
rape,
elimination
act.
E
That
would
absolutely
be
a
non-starter
for
those
entities.
E
D
D
Is
hired
with
something
that
you
all
are
giving
them
a
not
a
pass,
but
your
probationary
or
situation,
or
is
that
if
someone
after
employed
gets
into
trouble
and
you're
going
to
review
every
two
years
or
is
it
both.
E
Thank
you
for
the
question
ross
armstrong
for
the
record,
so
there
are
two
review
periods
and
thank
you
because
I
I
overlooked
one
piece
so
currently,
and
so
this
doesn't
change
a
lot.
Currently
after
someone
is
hired
by
one
of
these
entities,
they
have
to
run
the
background
check
every
five
years
to
make
sure
that
no
new
crimes
have
popped
up.
There's
some
clarifying
language
in
the
statute
that
talks
about
what
pending
charges
is
for
that
analysis
by
the
the
agency.
E
We
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
data
collection
and
regular
analysis
to
make
sure
that
there
wasn't
that
human
bias
seeping
into
the
system.
Knowing
that
the
the
hard
we
know
that
the
hard
line
like
no
discretion
in
statute
can
then
lead
to
just
structural
bias.
That
is
there's
no
way
out.
So
we
wanted
to
to
make
sure
that
those
entities
were
regularly
taking
a
look
at
their
practices,
with
an
eye
towards
making
sure
that
those
areas
where
there
was
discretion,
weren't
being
misused.
D
D
E
D
E
A
And
that
was
mr
armstrong
for
the
record.
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
from
committee
members.
A
Last
chance
last
chance
seeing
none
at
this
time,
I
will
ask
broadcast
services.
I
don't
see
anyone
on
the
zoom
here
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
21.
So
if
we
can
go
to
the
phone
lines
for
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
21
again,
I
would
remind
callers
to
please
clearly
state
and
spell
your
name
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes
again.
We
will
be
timing,
each
speaker
to
make
sure
everyone
is
given
a
fair
opportunity
to
speak
broadcast
services.
If
we
can
begin
testimony
in
support
to
testify.
B
H
H
We
believe
that
the
the
reprinted
version
of
this
bill
represents
a
department
that
really
believes
in
second
chances
and
that
can
hire
the
best
people
to
work
with
kids,
especially
people
with
maybe
checkered
past,
but
who
have
been
doing
really
well.
We
think
this
bill
is
a
great
step
for
the
department
and
we
encourage
you
to
support
it
and
again.
Thank
mr
armstrong.
B
I
I
D-A-N-I-E-L-P-I-E-R-R-O-T-T
with
argentine
partners-
and
I
am
testifying
in
support
of
sd-21
on
behalf
of
our
client
fingerprinting,
express
fingerprinting,
express
utilizes,
the
latest
technology
and
fingerprint
background
checks,
in
addition
to
a
myriad
of
other
services,
to
ensure
the
safety
and
security
of
nevadans
as
it
stands,
there
are
over
80
industries
in
nevada
that
are
required
by
statute
to
complete
a
fingerprint
background
check.
While
we
think
that
anyone
who
works
with
children
should
complete
a
fingerprint
background
check,
this
piece
of
legislation
moves
the
needle
in
creating
additional
protections
for
nevada's
children.
I
A
B
A
E
Yes,
ross
armstrong
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
You
know,
there's
there's
a
few
bills
where
you,
you
know
start
out,
and
you
get
actually
more
and
more
excited
about
the
bill
as
it
goes
along,
and
this
has
been
one
for
us
as
we
made
that
shift
from
kind
of
nerdy
administrative
law
change
to
real
real
change
in
the
way
we
approach
employing
our
staff,
and
so
I.
E
For
your
time
and
consideration,
if
there
are
questions
as
we
go
forward,
please
feel
free
to
reach
out,
but
other
than
that
we
are
proud
to
present
today
and
hope.
You
have
a
great
rest
of
your
hearing.
A
G
Well,
good
afternoon,
chairwinning
committee
on
health
and
human
services,
it's
my
pleasure
to
be
with
you
all
this
afternoon.
Thank
you
so
much
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
senate
bill
143
this
bill
has
been
a
labor
of
love.
Just
to
let
you
all
know
you
read
that
right.
This
is
sponsored
by
myself
and
assemblywoman
hanson.
G
I
like
to
tell
folks
that
means
it's
either
a
really
really
good
idea
or
a
really
really
bad
one
I'll
submit
that
it's
the
it's
the
former,
so
just
a
quick
rundown.
I
don't
want
to
take
up
too
much
of
all
of
your
time.
The
the
basis
behind
this
bill
really
is
to
codify
the
idea
that
parents
know
their
children
best
that
they
should
allow
their
kids
to
go
outside
and
play
engage
in
in
what
we
call
independent
activities
if
it's
safe
to
do
so.
G
This
by
no
means
says
that
any
parent
who
thinks
their
two-year-old
is
an
olympic
swimmer
and
doesn't
need
floaties
would
not
be
able
to
be
prosecuted
for
child
abuse
and
neglect.
However,
it
does
provide
some
guidelines
for
both
dfs,
as
well
as
for
parents,
to
make
it
clear
that,
if
you'd,
like
your
child,
to
be
able
to
walk
to
school
by
themselves
or
with
a
group
of
friends
that
you
won't
have
someone
banging
on
your
door
simply
because
you,
you
left
your
kid
at
home.
G
G
Folks
who
don't
look
like
the
majority
of
people
in
this
country,
and
so
the
second
piece
upon
this
bill
is
to
try
and
provide
a
little
bit
more
equity
in
in
that
application.
At
this
time.
If
you
all
don't
mind,
I'd
like
to
invite
my
co-sponsor
assemblywoman
hanson
to
the
table
to
to
speak
a
little
bit
about
why
she
felt
it
was
important
for
us
to
team
up
and
bring
this
bill
to
you.
G
J
Thank
you
chairwin
and
thank
you
committee
members,
and
thank
you
to
senator
harris
senator
harris
and
I
have
a
secret
she's,
my
favorite,
senator
and
but
we'll
just
we'll
just
keep
that
in
my
room,
because
I
don't
want
pete
g
to
find
out
that
he's
now.
My
second
favorite
so
for
the
record,
I'm
assemblywoman
alexis
hansen,
district,
32
and
again,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
the
opportunity
to
hear
the
reasonable
childhood
independence
bill
and
I'm
honored
to
be
co-sponsoring
with
senator
harris.
J
I
serve
in
the
interim
on
the
child,
welfare
and
juvenile
justice
committee
and
I'm
very
well
aware
of
the
very
serious
issues
that
face
our
children
and
families
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
that's
not
lost
on
myself,
nor
on
senator
harris.
I've
appreciated
the
opportunity
that
we've
had
to
be
able
to
talk
to
many
stakeholders
and
appreciate
their
input
and
the
amending
language
that's
been
submitted.
J
So,
let's,
first
and
foremost
make
it
really
clear
that
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
not
to
make
the
important
work
of
law
enforcement
or
child
protective
agencies
and
prosecutors
more
difficult.
We
appreciate
the
difficult
work
they
attend
to
in
our
state
on
a
regular
basis.
We
are
here
today
to
talk
about
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum,
responsible
parents
and
the
sometimes
unnecessary
hindrances
or
the
stigma
that
they
can
be
caught
up
initially
in
the
broad
scope
of
that
nevada
neglect
statute.
That
is
very
broad.
J
Many
of
you
know
that
senator
harris
and
I
were
raised
by
single
moms,
and
I
worry
that
if
they
were
raising
us
as
children
today
that
our
mothers
could
be
caught
up
in
this
broad
net
of
neglect
statute,
my
mother's
circumstances
were
such
that
she
allowed
me
and
sometimes
had
no
other
choice
than
to
allow
for
me
to
experience
reasonable
childhood
independence,
and
I
benefited
from
that
and
in
turn
my
eight
grown.
Very
successful
children
are
products
of
growing
up
with
the
same
kind
of
confidence
that
I
was
allowed
to
develop
today.
J
Many
parents
and
legislators
do
not
know
what
is
allowable
by
law
for
their
children
to
engage
in
these
independent
activities.
Unfortunately,
a
culture
of
fear
has
begun
to
grip
many
parents
in
our
communities
about
what
is
okay,
what
is
neglect
in
the
law,
eyes
of
the
law
or
even
in
the
eyes
of
their
neighbors?
J
I
see
this
legislation
as
enabling
good
parents
to
be
given
the
autonomy
to
make
decision
about
the
decisions
about
their
childhoods
independence
within
reasonable
and
that's
the
key
word
reasonable
guidelines
that
are
codified
in
statute.
This
is
not
a
solution
in
search
of
a
problem.
The
problem
already
exists.
Parents
in
our
communities
today
are
being
stigmatized.
J
G
I
want
the
committee
to
be
aware
that
the
the
most
recent
amendment
that
you
that
you
have
before
you
will
likely
be
changed
one
more
time,
and
I
just
want
to
with
your
permission
chair,
read
through
what
I
I'd
like
the
language
to
ultimately
read
in
section
1.5,
subsection,
2.
A
F
The
record
patrick
ashton
comedy
policy.
Analyst
members:
we
just
received
the
amendment
from
senator
harris
and
I
send
it
to
you
by
email.
It
should
be
uploaded
on
nella
shortly.
If
you
want
to
follow
along
too.
G
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
Ultimately,
subsection.
I
believe
it
is
b
will
read
after
line
what's
43
pursuant
to
nrs62e.280.
G
everybody
with
me,
okay,
lovely,
we'll,
read
or
the
child
is
alone
or
with
other
children
outside
the
direct
supervision
of
the
child's
parent
guardian,
a
step
parent
with
whom
the
child
lives.
An
adult
person
continually
or
regularly
found
in
the
same
household
as
the
child,
and
the
child
is
of
sufficient
maturity,
physical
condition
and
mental
ability.
That
indicates
that
their
health
or
welfare
is
not
harmed
or
threatened
with
harm
d
being
alone
or
with
other
children
outside
the
direct
supervision
of
the
child's
parent
guardian,
a
step
parent
with
whom
the
child
lives.
G
An
adult
person
continually
or
regularly
found
in
the
same
household
as
a
child,
as
defined
in
subsections
c,
may
include
a
child
engaging
in
independent
activities
and
you'll.
See
that
then
connects
to
dcfs
putting
forward
some
regulations
to
further
define
what
independent
activities
are
in
order
to
give
both
courts
and
those
who
are
out
in
the
field
clear
direction
on
what
it
actually
means
for
an
independent
activity
to
be
engaged
in
and
that
connects
it
with
the
legislative
intent
even
further
to
allow
parents
to
let
their
children
be
children.
G
With
that
chair
I
wanted
to
let
you
know.
We
have
two
folks
on
the
zoom
miss
diane
redleaf,
who
is
the
legal
consultant
with
let
grow
and
dr
rachel
flynn,
who
is
a
child
development
psychologist?
They
are
both
available
to
answer
any
of
the
more
technical
questions
the
committee
may
have.
Thank
you.
A
Perfect,
thank
you
so
much
at
this
time.
I
just
take
a
point
of
privilege
here
to
say
that
I'm
really
excited
about
this
bill.
Having
two
young
kids
of
my
own
age,
I
think
you
know
recognizing
their
maturity,
their
responsibility,
I
think
giving
them
these
kind
of,
like
freedom,
only
improves
their
ability
to
cope
their
ability
to
problem
solve
and
gives
them
confidence.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
think
we
have
some
questions
here.
I'm
looking
around
here,
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
go
ahead.
K
Perfect,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
questions.
I
appreciate
it,
and
so
I
was
just
reading
over
the
amendment
and
I
appreciate
it
because
it
looks
like
you're
working
really
hard
to
buy
regulations,
get
intent
and
on
concepts
right
and
that
can
be
really
hard,
because
we
know
that
other
states
might
put
a
hard
and
fast
age
in,
but
it
looks
like
when
we
talk
about.
Let's
take
the
word
maturity.
K
You
you're
gonna,
want
the
division,
the
department
to
define
through
regulation
what
maturity
is,
so
I
guess
for
the
for
the
direction
to
the
department
on
how
they
might
draft
it.
Could
you
give
us
a
little
bit
more
for
the
record
about
what
you
would
see.
The
intent
is
around
maturity
when
it's
not
tied
to
a
chronological
age.
G
The
question,
thank
you
so
much
to
you,
assemblywoman,
the.
I
think
you
hit
it
right
on
the
nose
right.
The
idea
of
putting
in
a
hard-line
age
for
this
type
of
legislation
really
just
is
not
appropriate.
G
Given
that
we
know
there
are
some,
let's
say,
eight
or
nine-year-olds,
who
are
able
to
be
at
home
for
30
minutes
and
their
other
eight
or
nine-year-olds,
who
will
set
the
place
on
fire,
and
so
the
maturity
really
is
about
allowing
the
parent
to
make
an
a
reasonable
assessment
of
what
their
child's
capabilities
are,
of
course
within
within
the
norms
of
of
childhood
development,
and
I
think
it's
best
that
the
department
is
able
to
take
input
from
the
folks
in
the
field
from
people
in
different
regions
of
the
state
and
be
able
to
come
up
with
a
clear
guidance
on
what
that
looks.
G
K
Perfect
and
that
that's
going
to
be
the
sticky
widget
right,
and
so
I
guess
explain
to
me
how
you
I
guess:
that's
the
bill,
sponsors
how
you
imagine
this
playing
out
so
right
now,
let's
take
it
an
apartment,
complex
situated
next
to
a
busy
street
right,
so
there
are
children
playing
outside
unsupervised.
K
Anyone
can
call
to
say
I
see
children
unsupervised.
That
call
goes
into
child
welfare.
There's
a
worker
who
takes
that
call
and
has
to
figure
out
is
this.
You
know
how
fast
we
have
to
get
there,
and
one
of
the
things
that
they'll
usually
ask
is
like
the
age
of
the
children
makes
a
difference
if
it's
a
three-year-old
versus
an
adolescent-looking
child,
so
they'll
still
go
through
that
process.
K
So
I
guess
ultimately,
if,
if
the
child,
when,
if
someone
were
to
show
up,
if
you
know
they
send
out
a
social
worker,
I
guess
at
what
point:
what
are
those
decisions
that?
What
are
the
criteria
that
you
would
want
that
worker
to
consider
before
they
would
make
a
decision
to
take
a
child
into
custody
or
take
other
measures
determine
that
they
need
to
be
involved?
I
would
guess,
I
would
say,
involved
versus
not
involved.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman.
I
you
hit
on
a
couple
of
things
that
I
just
want
to
point
out.
One
there's
nothing
in
this
bill
that
would
not
suggest
folks
should
continue
to
call
cps
right,
like
relevant
citizens
who
see
something
wrong
should
continue
to
call,
and
so
this
bill
does
not
touch
at
least
on
on
that
front-end
process.
G
Right,
I
don't
expect
expect
people
to
stop
calling
when
they
they
think
a
child
is,
is
truly
in
danger,
and
you
know
we
all
may
disagree
about
that,
but
you
know
there's
very
little.
We
can
do
on
that
end
and
and
for
the
most
part,
it
can
be
helpful
in
finding
bad
situations
right.
So
when
it
comes
to
the
social
worker.
Assessing
I'll
be
honest,
that
is
not
my
expertise.
That's
theirs
and
I
think
a
lot
of
what
we're
trying
to
codify
is
practice
that
they're
already
doing
right.
G
They
aren't
removing
children
who
are
maybe
outside
playing
on
on
their
bike,
even
if
they
do
have
to
show
up
as
a
matter
of
protocol,
and
so
frankly,
I
I
trust
the
social
workers
in
the
field
to
make
these
calls
and
assessments.
They're,
they're
well
versed
in
it.
G
What
you're,
also
looking
at,
though,
is,
is
when
people
are
actually
charged
for
criminal
abuse
and
neglect
right
and
that's
not
often,
the
the
social
workers
necessary
call
right
on
the
spot
and
so
we're
giving
both
courts
guidance,
parents,
guidance
and
and
the
social
workers
as
well,
and
I
would
suggest
that
out
of
the
three,
the
social
workers
probably
need
the
least
amount
of
it.
K
Thank
you
so
much.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
kind
of
getting
a
feel
for
how
this
would
look,
and
I
think
that
if
the
intent
is
taking
some
existing
practices
in
which
they
can
document
that
a
child
is
safe
in
which
they
would
document
that
there's
no
harm
and
they're
not
going
to
substantiate
a
case,
then
it
looks
like
what
you're
trying
to
do
is
to
clear
a
path
where
regulations
would
better
say
what
that
is.
K
And
then
those
regulations
would
be
the
backing
for
whether
or
not
an
agency
decided
to
to
take
action
or
not.
But
we're
not
you're,
not
necessarily-
and
I
guess
we
might
hear
it
in
in
more
testimony,
maybe
in
support
of
instances
where
parents
felt
that
their
children
were
safe
and
they
got
pulled
into
the
child
welfare
system.
So
maybe
hearing
about
some
of
those
will
help
draw
a
little
bit
more
of
a
of
a
bright
line
to
help
us
understand
where,
where
the
system
overstepped.
G
Thank
you
again,
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
dallas
hairs
for
the
record.
Sorry,
I've
been
failing
at
doing
that.
Thus
far
that
that's
correct,
we
want
parents
to
be
able
to
to
feel
like
they
can
do
what
they
do.
We
want
social
workers
to
also
feel
like
they
can
do
what
they
are
chartered
to
do,
but
I
think
the
key
here
is
to
ensure
and
to
make
it
very
clear
that
if
you
are
solely
allowing
your
child
to
engage
in
these
independent
activities,
as
will
be
defined
later,
you
should
be
left
alone.
K
Perfect
and
then
we'll
just
clarify
for
the
record,
I'm
sure
someone
else
will,
but
even
within
our
child
welfare
agencies,
they
might
not
all
be
social
workers.
I
think
county
and
state
have
policy
on
social
workers,
but
clark
county
has
a
different
policy,
so
whether
it's
a
social
worker
or
child
welfare
worker,
okay,.
F
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
and
good
afternoon,
senator
assemblywoman
good
to
have
you
both
with
us
here
today.
Sort
of
a
follow-up,
I
guess
to
assemblywoman
venus
thompson's
question.
I'm
just
wondering
you
know,
given
the
the
flexibility,
the
lack
of
specificity,
are
there
other
states
that
maybe
have
have
something
similar
in
place
and
could
that
be
something
we
could
look
to
as
a
guide
for
what's
been
tried?
What's
worked,
what
hasn't
worked
or
just
general
lessons,
perhaps
to
be
learned
from
experiences
elsewhere?
Thank
you.
G
L
L
Just
this
morning,
the
bill
in
oklahoma
was
sent
to
the
governor
on
on
a
reconciliation
vote
that
took
place
this
morning.
The
bill
there
is
a
similar
bill
in
texas,
that
is
on
a
consent
calendar
in
the
senate,
and
this
legislation
is
modeled
on
utah,
which
passed
legislation
2018
that
sets
out
independent
activities
with
children
having
sufficient
maturity,
physical
condition
and
mental
ability.
L
All
of
the
bills
that
let
grow
has
been
endorsing
supporting
working
with
stakeholders
on
have
that
element
of
supporting
independent
activities,
deferring
to
reasonable
parental
judgment,
and
I
think
nevada
so
far,
is
the
only
state
where
we
are
going
to
engage
in
a
more
detailed
rulemaking
process,
which
we
look
forward
to
providing
that
sort
of
guidance.
L
The
other
states
have
it
more
spelled
out
in
the
law.
What
independent
activities
are,
including
walking
to
school,
playing
in
parks
being
alone
at
home?
Those
kind
of
activities
that
the
law
has
set
forth,
but
they
all
have
that
element
of
maturity,
physical
condition
and
and
leave
the
determination
of
neglect
to
the
agency
to
make
using
their
judgment
using
their
own
standards
and
not
really
changing
procedure.
L
Except
to
give
parents
that
reasonable
flexibility
to
make
their
own
decisions
based
on
their
knowing
the
child.
Best.
F
Thank
you
and-
and
it
may
be
a
brief
follow-up
if
I
make
sure
it
may
be
too
broad
to
to
really
get
into
this
afternoon,
but
I
would
be
curious
to
double
a
little
more
deeply
into
what
some
of
the
lessons
learned
and
what
the
experiences
in
other
states
have
shown
us,
but
that's
probably
something
we
can
follow
up
on
at
another
time.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you
cheer
and
thank
you,
senators,
hansen
and
harris
for
bringing
this
much-needed
bill
forward
and
the
only
reason
why
I
say
that
is
because
I
too
single
parent
raising
two
children
and
at
one
time
I
was
active
duty,
military
and
my
question.
You
know
I
am
sure
that
you
wouldn't
have
a
three-year-old
running
the
street.
M
Without
you
know,
you
can't
say
that
a
you
know
a
parent
looked
at
a
three-year-old
and
said
oh
they're,
mature
enough
to
be
alone,
but
I'm
wondering
why
a
number
wasn't
put
in
the
bill
because
when
I
first
got
to
las
vegas
in
order
for
a
child
to
be
alone
in
the
house,
I
believe
the
age
was
12.
M
and
I
don't
know
where
they
picked
that
number
up,
but
I
do
remember
it
had
to
be
12.
So
you
know
until
my
children
reach
that
that
point
I
had
to
have
a
toe
care
provider
and
as
a
single
parent
bringing
in
one
salary,
that's
really
difficult.
M
G
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblewoman
thomas,
I
believe
you're
hitting
exactly
on
why
we
don't
have
that
age
right
into
the
law
one.
I
have
a
general
belief
that
parents
know
their
children
best.
Are
there
parents
who
misbehave
certainly-
and
I
believe
this
bill
was
designed
to
walk
that
line,
allow
parents
to
to
make
a
a
decision
based
upon
their
their
their
child's
maturity
and
ability,
but
also
allow
parents
who
leave
three-year-olds
at
home
alone
to
be
able
to
be
prosecuted
under
the
language
in
in
in
this
bill.
G
I
think
we
can
all
agree.
You
are
correct
that
you
know
leaving
a
three-year-old
at
home
is
not
appropriate,
especially
for
any
sustained
period
of
time.
However,
I
feel
free
to
admit
on
the
record
now
I've
left
my
nine-year-old
at
home.
While
I
went
to
the
grocery
store-
or
you
know,
maybe,
went
and
and
picked
something
up
from
from
walmart
pickup
on
on
the
curbside,
and
so
I
that's
exactly
why
we
don't
have
that
number
in
there
right.
You
need
to
allow
parents
to
be
able
to
make
those
decisions.
G
You
need
to
allow
parents
to
not
feel
like
they
can't
step
out
when
they
need
to
go
and,
and
do
one
or
two
things
if
their
child,
of
course
is
of
substantial
maturity.
I
mean
especially
with
the
price
of
child
care
here
in
america,
so
you're
hitting
on
something
very
real.
I
think
that
this
bill
is
is
trying
to
address.
F
F
I
think
it
is
the
one
of
the
most
important
things
that
we
can
be
doing
for
our
children
to
let
them
grow
in
a
manner
that
is
fitting
for
each
parent,
and
so
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you,
and
I
do
have
to
ask
a
question,
though,
would
you
consider
this
free
free-range
parenting
or
cage-free
parenting.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question
sublime
hafen,
I'm
not
sure
those
are
mutually
exclusive.
We
could
we
could
call
them
both.
L
N
A
I'm
looking
around,
I
know
some
people
might
have
some
other
questions
from
some
of
the
agencies
that
will
probably
testify
either
in
support
opposition
or
neutral.
So
if
you
are
from
one
of
those
agencies,
if
you
can
just
after
you
make
your
statement,
if
you
can
give
us
a
little
pause
to
see,
if
we
have
any
questions
from
committee
members,
that
would
be
greatly
appreciated.
G
And
chair,
I
just
I
want
to
let
let
the
committee
members
know
we
do
have
bridget
duffy
as
well
on
the
zoom.
I
know
she
will
be
giving
some
testimony
as
well
so
be
on
the
lookout
for
that.
A
Perfect,
so
just
try
to
catch
me.
Committee
members,
if
you
have
a
question
for
any
of
the
people
testifying
in
support
opposition
or
neutral
on
the
bill,
do
we
have
any
other
questions
for
our
bill?
Presenters,
though,
at
this
time?
D
Thank
you
so
much
senator
harris
and
assemblywoman
hanson.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure,
and
I
I
wasn't
able
to
see
it
in
my
quick
review
if
the
child
has
to
use
public
transportation
to
get
where
they're
going.
Is
there
a
prohibition
for
that.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman.
No,
there
is
no
prohibition
for
that
and
I
I
do
think,
although
it's
not
in
the
the
list
that
we
put
down,
I
do
think
dcfs
will
will
have
to
consider
allowing
children
to
ride
public
transportation,
whether
that
be
to
get
to
school
or
to
the
next
activity
needs
to
to
be
considered.
That
is
a
great
question.
D
And
thank
you,
and
I
I
thank
you.
This
is
sean
dr
simmers
armstrong
assembly
district,
six.
I
think
that
is
really
important
and
I
think
that
there
has
to
be
clarity
there,
I'm
in
a
district
that
is
public
transit,
dependent
and
although
I
have
and
always
have
had,
thank
god,
a
vehicle
when
I
was
single
parenting
and
even
afterwards
and
my
kids
had
school
and
then
baseball,
we
did
the
whole
training.
This
is
where
you
walk
to
get
on
the
bus.
D
Put
your
money
in
sit
next
to
the
driver
and
then
go
to
baseball,
and
I
think
that
that
really
changes
how
children
see
themselves
and
grows
their
confidence
plus.
I
was
able
to
call
the
bus
company
because
I
work
for
them
and
have
them
check
with
the
driver.
So
I
think
it's
really
important.
So
thank
you.
Please
have
them.
Consider
that.
G
Dal's
hair
is
for
the
record.
Definitely
I
do
know
right
now
in
the
language
it
does
say,
travel
to
and
from
school
it
doesn't
have
a
limitation
on
the
mode,
and
so
that's
definitely.
The
intention
of
this
bill
is
to
allow
children
to
be
able
to
kind
of
engage
with
the
world
right.
That's
how
they
become
functional
adults
and
so
learning
how
to
take
public
transportation
is
definitely
a
part
of
that.
A
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
from
committee
members
checking
out
my
skype
chat
here?
I
don't
see
any
here
so
with
that
we
will
begin
testimony
in
support.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
room
if
there
is
anyone
in
the
room
to
provide
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
143
I'd
ask
you
to
come
to
the
table
again
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two.
A
F
A
A
Seeing
then
I
will
go
next
to
the
zoom,
because
I'm
not
sure
if
there
are
individuals
that
would
like
to
present
testimony
and
support
again,
I
would
remind
you
to
state
your
name
clearly
for
the
record
and
spell
it
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes.
Thank
you.
O
Thank
you
chair
and
when,
when
yes,
this
is
virginia
for
the
record,
it's
b-r-I-g-I-d
d-u-f-f-y,
I'm
the
chief
of
the
juvenile
division
for
the
clark
county
district
attorney's
office,
and
I
am
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
the
department
of
family
services.
I
know
director
burch
is
presenting
later
on
this
bill,
but
we've
been
dividing
and
conquering
with
so
many
set
today,
so
he
is
here
as
well.
I
am
testifying
in
support.
O
I
originally
registered
an
opposition
because
we've
been
working
on
amendments
up
and
into
literally
about
the
time
that
senator
harris
took
the
table
today,
and
so
I
want
to
very
much
qualify,
my
testimony
with,
on
behalf
of
the
agency
that
if
these
amendments
which
have
been
presented
today
by
senator
harris
are
accepted,
then
the
department
of
family
services
in
clark
county
are
supportive
of
them
and
thank
both
sponsors,
assemblywoman
hanson
and
senator
harris
for
working
with
us.
So
closely.
O
As
far
as
this
legislation
goes,
when
the
first
week
of
the
session
came
out,
this
bill
was
very
quickly
in
our
queue
early
on
and
we
had
a
meeting
with
the
stakeholders
from
let
grow
and
and
different
child
welfare
organizations
across
the
state
and
what
we
were
told
as
child
welfare
was
parents,
don't
know
what
they're
allowed
to
have
their
children.
O
Do
parents
live
in
fear
that
they
can't
leave
their
children
alone,
parents
in
nevada
in
nevada,
so
I
offered
an
example
of
how
I
understand
that
maybe
we
aren't
clear
enough
with
parents,
so
I
we
had
a
case
here
in
clark
county
where
an
eight-year-old
had
successfully
killed
himself
with
a
firearm
in
a
home.
O
He
was
home
alone
with
his
five-year-old
sister
and
it
was
ruled
a
homicide
by
the
coroner
or
a
suicide
by
the
coroner,
and
so
we
you
know
that
I
got
a
lot
of
press
calls
saying
well
how
come
this
eight-year-old
can
be
home
alone
like
isn't
that
illegal?
How
old
do
they
have
to
be
home
alone?
And-
and
the
answer
to
the
press
was
there's,
there
is
no,
we
don't
it's
not
an
age-based
decision.
O
It's
a
maturity
level,
it's
a
developmental
level,
it's
a
physical
condition
level,
so
it
was
easy
for
us
as
stakeholders
from
the
district
attorney's
office
to
the
public
defenders
to
legally
to
say
you
know
what
it
let's
make
it
clear
in
statute,
so
parents
do
understand
that
a
child
can
be
alone
or
outside
direct
supervision
of
a
parent
or
a
person,
some
of
the
people
responsible
for
their
welfare
if
they
are
of
sufficient
maturity
and
physical
condition
and
mental
ability,
and
that
that
indicates
that
they
are
not
threatened
with
harm
or
would
be
harmed.
O
So
we
basically
said
you
know:
let's
make
it
clear
for
parents
in
the
state
of
nevada
the
issue
of
the
independent
activities.
That's
the
stakeholders
or
the
lobbying
groups
issue
for
us
alone
is
alone
and
when
a
call
comes
into
the
hotline
just
to
address
assemblywoman,
dennis
thompson's
issue
and
to
clarify
it
for
the
record,
we
do
not
have
a
lot
of
removals
in
our
county
based
upon
lack
of
supervision
unless
it's
really
young
children
that
are
found
wandering
in
the
streets
in
august
in
diapers,
without
shoes.
O
You
know.
That's
that's
not
necessarily
going
to
rush
child
protective
services
out
there.
Now,
if
it's
august
and
the
child
is
three
and
the
child
doesn't
have
shoes
on
and
the
playground's
hot
and
there's
nobody
there
like
that,
may
amp
the
situation
up
a
little
as
well
as
pools
in
in
children
round
pools,
as
was
an
example
provided
before
by
senator
harris.
You
know
we
have
to
be
very
careful
when
we
have
young
children
around
pools
without
adult
supervision,
also
to
address
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong's
issue
around
public
transportation.
O
O
It
is
a
mode
of
transportation,
children
use
it
to
get
to
and
from
school
again
it
is
based
on
the
maturity
and
the
physical
condition
and
the
mental
ability
of
a
child,
and
you
know
we
have
to
we-
couldn't
just
put
an
age
into
statute,
because
a
12
year
old
may
not
have
the
a
mental
ability
of
a
12
year
old.
We
have
many
12
year
olds,
with
mental
abilities
of
three
four
year
olds,
due
to
developmental
delays.
O
So
it
is
better
to
do
these
general
criteria
that
will
then
be
screened
by
the
child
protective
service
hotline.
So
we
hope,
by
working
with
the
sponsors,
we've
allowed
our
concerns,
as
as
the
people
who
practice
day
in
and
day
out,
in
the
child
welfare
agency,
courtrooms
and
in
the
field.
That
alone
is
alone,
and
it
is
okay
and
a
parent
can
be
clear
as
long
as
their
child
is
of
sufficient
maturity,
physical
condition
and
mental
ability.
O
That
would
indicate
that
they
are
not
harmed
or
threatened
with
harm
and
then
allowed
what
the
what
the
organization
like
grow
came
in
with
wanting
to
let
parents
and
encourage
parents
to
allow
their
children
to
get
out
and
get
some
independence
and
do
some
activities
are
also
captured
in
this
amendment
is
a
as
a
balance
for
both
us
and
them.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you
again
to
the
senator
and
assemblywoman
for
working
with
us.
This
has
been
definitely
one
of
the
longest
work
bills.
O
A
Ms
duffy,
thank
you
for
staying
on
the
line.
We
actually
do
have
a
couple
of
questions
for
you.
If
I
can
go
to
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
K
Thank
you
so
much,
and
once
again
this
is
for
the
record,
because
we're
going
to
have
the
state
department
promulgate
these
rigs
and
the
same
question
that
to
send
that
I
had
for
senator
harris
is
when
we
talk
about
the
concept
of
maturity.
I
guess
what
would
you
want
on
the
record
to
help
indicate
to
folks
who
are
going
to
be
writing
this
regulations?
K
What
you
would
hope
to
see
encapsulated
in
in
that
concept
of
maturity
like
what's
going
to
be,
that
help
to
be
that
bright
line
so
that
we
know
kind
of,
I
guess,
is
it
I'm
trying
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out?
Are
we
listing
if
we're
not
listing
ages?
Are
we
listing
we're
going
to
be
listing
characteristics
and
like,
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
get
into
a
circular
reference
where
we
have
regulation
that
just
ends
up
being
as
muddy
as
status
quo.
O
Thank
you
for
the
question,
assemblywoman
madinah
thompson.
I
think
that's
absolutely
right.
We
we're
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
basically
situations
so
take
my
example
of
the
eight-year-old
who
sadly
took
his
life.
O
The
five-year-old
sister
was
mature
enough
to
know
that
she
she
was
the
one
who
went
next
door
to
the
neighbor,
because
the
parent
who
had
a
window
of
approximately
45
minutes
between
her
working
and
her
the
stepfather
working
there
was
45
minutes
where
the
children
would
be
home
alone
and
they
had
a
plan
with
the
children
that
involved
the
neighbors,
who
knew
they
were
home
alone
and
in
fact,
that
five-year-old
knew
to
implement
that
plan
as
she
was
in
the
room
with
her
brother
who
was
dying
so
so
that
five-year-old
is
was
of
a
maturity
level,
even
in
a
crisis
situation.
O
So
it's
it's
really
about
those
right,
reasonable
parenting
right
like
what,
when,
when
I'm
sure,
when
senator
harris,
who
put
her
personal,
you
know
went
to
walmart
to
pick
up
things
that
the
nine-year-old
knew
who
to
call.
If
there
was
an
emergency
in
that
15
minutes,
she
may
have
been
out
of
the
house.
So
it's
really
those
situational
things.
K
So
I
guess
then
are
we.
It
sounds
like
we're
talking
about
kind
of
protective
capacities.
We'll
talk
about.
I
mean
that's
the
way
that
a
lot
of
times
we
talk
about
the
ability
of
a
parent
when
we're
talking
about
neglect
right
as
their
protective
capacities,
their
ability
to
to
protect
their
child
from
harm
and
to
do
so
willingly
right.
K
O
Bridget
jeffy
for
the
record-
and
I
know
I
failed
to
do
that-
the
last
couple
times:
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
Yes,
absolutely.
A
Do
you
even
have
further
questions
for
miss
duffy
at
this
time
sing?
None!
Thank
you.
Next,
I
will
actually
go.
I
believe
we
have
dr
rachel
flynn.
I
saw
her
unmute
and
turn
on
her
camera
go
ahead
and
provide
your
testimony
again.
I'd
remind
you
to
say
your
name
clearly
for
the
record
and
begin
your
testimony.
P
Hi
I'm
rachel
plan,
it's
r-a-c-h-e-l-f-l-y-n-n,
I'm
a
resident
of
reno
and
I'm
a
developmental
psychologist,
and
I
currently
am
a
professor
of
child
development
and
I
also
have
a
private
practice
working
with
children
for
over
a
decade.
I
was
a
director
of
youth
development
programs
and
I
worked
really
closely
on
many
cases
which
are
protective
services.
Overall.
I
support
this
bill
because
I
believe
it's
good
for
child
development.
P
I've
worked
with
a
huge
range
of
children
from
diverse
ethnicities,
social,
economic
statuses,
urban
and
rural
populations,
and
also
a
lot
of
different
cognitive
abilities
from
the
gifted
and
talented
to
those
with
severe
intellectual
delays
and
who
are
non-verbal.
I
just
want
to
address
this
idea
of
maturity.
I
think
a
lot
of
it's
already
been
said,
but
it's
very
important
to
recognize
that
chronological
age
does
not
align,
often
with
developmental
age.
P
There
are
so
many
variations
based
on
an
individual
child,
their
capacities,
their
their
cognition,
their
self-regulation
and
also
their
culture
context
matters
so
much
the
things
that
have
been
said
around
parent
responsibility,
but
also
professional
responsibility
in
this,
and
so,
while
leaving
things
vague,
might
seem
challenging.
Anyone
who
is
trained
to
work
with
children
understands
the
differences
between
chronological
age
and
developmental
age
and
knows
how
to
take
those
contexts
into
consideration.
P
I
want
to
just
say
that
the
the
culture
of
fear
that's
been
discussed
previously
is
creating
a
culture
of
children
who
have
higher
mental
health
challenges.
They
have
more
learning
disabilities,
it's
creating
stress
and
anxiety
and
limits
their
agency,
and
what
we
really
need
to
do
is
over
at
overestimate,
sometimes
children's
developmental
abilities.
We
need
to
call
on
the
developmental
science
research
to
understand
that
children
need
to
practice
using
their
executive
functioning
skills
to
make
decisions
to
solve
problems.
They
need
to
use
their
visual
spatial
skills
to
move
through
the
world
in
different
ways.
P
They
need
to
have
these
complex
social
interactions
that
flex
their
theory
of
mind
and
they
need
to
be
able
to
play
unstructured
play.
That's
not
always
adult
or
technology
directed
or
adult
supervised,
and
so
for
all
of
those
reasons
that
helps
lead
children
to
develop
into
being
intelligent,
resilient
and
independent
children.
So
that's
what
I.
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
any
other,
do
we
have
any
other
callers
on
the
zoom?
That
would
go
ahead
and
unmute
yourself
and
again,
please
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
please
let
me
your
testimony
to
two
minutes.
Thank
you.
Go
ahead
and
begin.
L
Yes
again,
I'm
diane
redleaf
d-I-a-n-a-r-e-d-l-e-a-f,
I'm
the
legal
consultant
to
let
grow,
and
I
advocate
for
the
laws
such
as
the
one
you're
considering
today.
I
wanted
to
address
a
couple
points
that
were
brought
up
in
the
hearing.
Our
office
did
a
50-state
survey
of
these
laws
that
was
published
back
in
may,
and
I
went
back
to
that
survey
to
look
at
the
question
of
age
limits
and
what
I
found
in
that
survey
that
we
had
done.
L
An
exhaustive
study
is
that
approximately
13
states
have
some
reference
to
age,
but
the
age
is
all
over
the
place.
It
ranges
from
at
the
young
side
six,
but
on
the
old
side,
twelve
and
it
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
consistency
about
what
the
age
allows
for
our
concern
about
age
limits,
as
dr
flynn
just
explained,
is
that
they
don't
bear
a
direct
relationship
to
actual
functional
abilities
and
they
can
function
as
a
double-edged
sword.
L
We
have
also
seen
policy
guidance,
though,
in
the
course
of
reviewing
these
state
prop
policies
on
this,
and
we
can
provide
some
of
that
to
the
committee
as
they
consider
the
the
rules,
because
guidance
is
something
that
not
only
the
caseworkers
and
the
social
workers
need,
but
the
parents
also
need
in
order
to
know
how
they
make
a
decision
as
to
whether
their
child
is
mature
enough.
L
We
believe
that
these
laws
as
they've
been
passing
actually
help
provide
safety
and
security
for
children,
because
they
they
not
only
address
their
mental
health
needs,
but
they
make
them
able
more
capable.
L
As
for
the
future,
and
so
we
talk
about
this
as
a
a
measure
that
actually
future
proofs
our
children
and
as
mentioned,
we
believe
that
there
is
tremendous
variation
in
the
needs
of
parents
to
be
able
to
address
the
needs
of
their
children
in
their
own
ways
without
having
the
chilling
effect
of
the
threat
of
a
possible
guessing
wrong
about.
What
somebody
else
is
going
to
think
is
neglect.
L
So
this
is
a
small
step.
It
doesn't
change
investigation
procedures,
it
doesn't
change
the
duties
of
mandated
reporters.
It
will
continue
to
support
and
increase
the
ability
of
child
protective
services
to
concentrate
on
the
serious
cases
and
apply
their
judgment
to
the
specifics
of
the
children,
specific
children
who
are
engaged
in
act,
independent
activities.
We
believe
we
need
to
more
clearly
define
the
difference
between
good
and
bad
parenting
and
that
when
children
are
ready,
giving
them
independence
needs
to
be
within
the
lines
that
the
law
recognizes
as
part
of
good
parenting.
L
So
thank
you
so
much
for
considering
the
bill,
and
I
appreciate
the
hard
work
that
the
sponsors
have
put
into
this
and
all
the
consideration
that
the
other
advocates
and
stakeholders
have
put
into
this
measure
thanks.
So
much.
A
And
thank
you
for
providing
your
testimony,
I'm
looking
at
the
zoom
again.
If
there
is
anyone
else
that
would
like
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
143
I'd.
Ask
you
at
this
time
to
turn
on
your
camera
and
unmute
your
device
and
I'm
not
seeing
anyone
and
if
you
are
done
speaking
I'd,
ask
you
to
re-mute
your
device
as
well.
So
we
don't
get
that
feedback
as
well.
A
If
we
can
begin
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
143,
I
do
see
quite
a
few
people
that
are
registered
to
testify
and
support,
which
is
wonderful,
and
I
encourage
people
to
take
advantage
of
this
but
feel
free
to
say
I
support
the
bill
and
ditto
and
likewise
I
know
that
we
have
a
couple
other
bills
that
we
are
looking
to
hear
today
and
again
I'll
remind
everyone
that
they
can
also
provide
those
written
comments
if
they
have
additional
comments
to
make
in
writing
to
the
committee,
and
with
that,
we
will
begin
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
143.
B
B
B
Q
Good
afternoon,
I'm
so
sorry
for
the
background
noise,
I'm
walking
with
my
service
dog,
my
name
is
dora
martinez,
I'm
representing
the
nevada,
disability,
peer
action
coalition
and
thank
you
so
much
senator
dallas
harris.
I
used
to
be
a
single
mom
of
five.
The
two
kids
have
made
it
to
the
military.
One
is
in
the
marine.
We
do
know
our
children
better
than
anybody
else
despite
our
disability.
B
H
Hello,
thank
you
chairwinning
committee
members.
This
is
nick
chipak
and
I
c-k-s-h-e-p-a-c-k
policy
and
program
associate
with
the
aclu
of
nevada.
It
was
brought
to
my
attention
that
I
was
actually
allowed
in
the
room.
I
will
exercise
my
reasonable
independence
moving
forward
to
double
check
any
emails
I
get
declining
me.
I
will
try
to
be
brief
here.
As
I
know,
we
have
many
callers
on
the
line.
The
aclu
believes
that
this
bill
addresses
a
very
serious
racial
justice
issue
to
drive
home
that
racial
justice
issue.
H
I
want
to
share
a
few
numbers
from
washoe
county
from
2016
to
2020
north
lake,
the
north
lake
tahoe
area,
which
is
95
white,
with
a
population
of
about
10
000
people
had
42
child
welfare
investigations
and
only
two
child
removals.
The
south
reno
area,
which
is
90
percent
white,
has
a
population
of
27
000
and
had
142
investigations
in
33
removals.
H
The
zip
code
in
which
I
live
in
reno,
which
includes
midtown
in
the
area
around
the
reno
airport,
is
only
65
percent
white,
with
a
population
of
about
40
000..
It
had
over
18
000
investigations
and
535
removals.
North
reno
up
to
the
north
valley,
is
59
percent
white
and
has
a
population
of
twenty
thousand.
They
had
over
one
thousand
investigations
and
three
hundred
and
thirty
six
removals.
H
This
is
a
real
problem
and
we
believe
that
this
bill
takes
real
steps
to
addressing
this
issue
and
for
these
reasons,
as
as
law
of
as
well
as
with
the
other
reasons
stated
by
the
presenters,
we
urge
you
to
support
this
bill.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
B
Q
Sorry
about
that,
my
name
is
charlie
melvin
c-h-a-r-l-I-e-m-e-l-v-I-n,
with
power
to
parent,
and
we
represent
nearly
10
000
parents
across
the
state
of
nevada.
Our
organization
exists
to
empower
parents
to
advocate
for
their
children,
because
we
believe
that
parents
know
their
children
best.
We
are
in
support
of
sb
143
because
we
believe
that
only
parents
understand
the
maturity
of
their
child
and
can
best
make
decisions
regarding
their
level
of
independence.
Q
We
also
know
low-income
families
can
be
disproportionately
affected
for
multiple
reasons,
but
especially
because
both
parents
may
need
to
work
and
families
should
not
be
punished
for
providing
for
their
families.
Parenting
is
difficult
enough
without
the
fear
of
cps
or
other
government
agencies,
second-guessing
reasonable
parenting
decisions.
We
understand
and
appreciate
the
need
for
these
agencies
in
cases
of
real
and
serious
neglect
or
abuse,
but
we
also
know
that
responsible
parents
can
and
should
be
allowed
to
make
reasonable
parenting
decisions
about
the
maturity
independence
of
their
kids.
Q
We
are
grateful
for
this
bipartisan
legislation
that
protects
the
right
to
parents
to
make
reasonable
parenting
decisions
for
their
children.
To
that
end,
we
also
appreciate
assemblyman
hafen's
question
and
agree
with
senator
harris
that
both
free
range
and
cage-free
parenting
titles
are
appropriate
for
this
bill.
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
to
everyone
who
worked
on
this.
B
R
Bingo,
that's
me
hi.
My
name
is
lenore
skinezzy
k,
e,
a
z
y
and
I'm
president
of
let
grow
the
non-profit
that
promotes
childhood
independence.
We
push
back
on
the
idea
that
helicopter
parenting
is
good
for
kids.
Before
this
I
wrote
a
book
called
guess
what
free
range
kids,
that's
my
book,
not
cage
free
kids
and
that
started
the
free
range
kids
movement
at
let
grow.
We
believe
in
safety,
helmets,
seat
belts,
car
sheets,
all
the
ways
parents
that
can
keep
their
parents
keep
their
kids
safe
from
unnecessary
harm.
R
We
also
believe
it's
great
for
kids
to
have
some
independence,
just
like
you've
been
hearing
throughout
this
amazing
amazing
session.
We
think
that
kids
can
run
some
errands
climb
some
trees
when
their
parents
feel
they're
ready
for
it.
But
I
get
so
many
letters
from
parents
saying
that
they
want
their
kids
to
walk
to
the
store
or
play
outside
or
wait
at
home.
R
The
problem
is
that
when
kids
are
treated
as
if
they're
fragile,
they
start
to
believe
it
childhood
anxiety
and
depression
are
on
the
rise,
but
in
2018,
as
you
heard,
utah
passed
the
law
changing
that
that
was
the
free-range
parenting
law.
So
what
we
heard
we
heard
from
parents
in
utah
who
told
us
that
once
the
law
passed,
they
could
breathe
easier.
One
dad
told
us
he
was
kind
of
a
helicopter
dad.
R
He
was
always
worried
about
letting
his
kids
walk
to
school
or
trick-or-treat
without
an
adult,
but
as
they
got
older,
he
saw
the
kids
were
getting
frustrated
easily
and
unable
to
solve
problems
on
their
own.
And
for
this
he
blamed
a
lack
of
real-world
interactions,
those
kids
weren't
getting
on
the
bus,
paying
the
right
money
and
sitting
next
to
the
bus
driver.
R
So,
in
desperation
he
started
to
let
them
play
in
the
park
on
their
own
and
wander
around
the
neighborhood
and
play,
and
thanks
to
utah's
childhood
independence
law,
he
felt
he
could
do
what
was
best
for
his
kids.
Sometimes
I
ask
people,
and
maybe
I'd,
ask
you
to
think
back
on
what
they
loved
they
most
loved.
Doing
as
a
kid,
almost
everyone
will
say
what
I
bet
you
would
say,
which
is
they
love
playing
with
their
friends
riding
their
bikes
building
forts.
R
No
one
has
ever
said
that
what
they
loved
most
was
having
their
mom
right
there
hovering
over
them.
That's
why
we're
so
excited
to
be
working
in
nevada,
and
we
so
appreciate
our
sponsors
and
all
the
stakeholders.
All
the
people
have
spoken
today
together.
I
think
you
will
do
great
things
for
the
kids
and
parents
of
nevada.
Thank
you
for
supporting
reasonable
childhood
independence.
B
Q
A-N-D-R-E-A-K-E-I-T-H,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
legrow
and
I
happen
to
be
a
resident
of
nevada.
I
started
my
career
as
an
elementary
school
teacher
in
california
and
also
taught
in
northern
colorado
and
rural.
You
know
illinois.
My
classrooms
were
always
very
diverse,
academically
economically
and
racially,
and
I
had
to
fulfill
my
obligation
more
than
once
as
a
court
mandated
reporter.
Q
So
I
believe
strongly
that
society
must
protect
children
from
harm,
but
I
also
have
known
hundreds
of
children
who,
while
in
the
same
grade,
were
each
unique
in
their
maturity
and
their
capacity
for
handling
things
on
their
own
experience
is
definitely
the
best
teacher
and
children
can
and
children
need
to
be
able
to
learn
to
navigate
to
their
world
advocate
for
themselves
and
solve
real
life,
spontaneous
problems
which
is
difficult
to
do.
If
we
keep
them
inside
and
don't
give
them
those
opportunities.
Q
I
can
tell
you
that
child
development,
expert,
psychologists
and
educators
will
all
tell
you
that
children
who
are
allowed
to
have
independent
experiences
are
more
resilient,
happier
more
confident
and
more
successful
in
school.
In
fact,
this
is
one
area
that
can
give
lower
income
and
other
cultural
other
cultures
an
advantage,
as
their
children
are
often
expected
to
be
more
mature
and
independent
out
of
necessity,
as
opposed
to
privileged
children
who
frequently
have
things
done
for
them.
Q
B
I
Sorry
about
that,
this
is
daniel
hansen
h-a-n-s-c-n.
I
am
a
physician
and
a
father
calling
in
support
of
this
bill.
Thank
you,
chair
and
assembly
committee
for
hearing
this
briefly,
just
want
to
concur
with
the
vast
majority
of
the
testimony
particularly
want
to
highlight
the
excellent
points
made
by
the
the
psychologist.
I
pardoned
me
for
not
catching
the
name
about
the
discrepancy
we
often
see
between
developmental
age
and
chronological
age.
I
deal
with
a
lot
of
pediatric
anesthesia
and
so
on.
I
The
front
line
see
some
of
the
worst
cases
of
neglect
and
abuse,
and
it's
it's
horrible
stuff,
and
this
this
legislation
in
no
way
makes
it
okay
or
gives
any
hint
that
we
are
as
a
state,
okay
with
neglecting
and
abusing
our
children.
I
I
think
that
in
the
setting
of
this
last
year,
in
particular,
we've
all
seen
the
deleterious
effects
of
children
being
sequestered
inside
and
we're
seeing
increasingly
the
actual
clinical
manifestations
of
problems
from
children
not
being
able
to
go
out
and
play
in
the
park
and
fall
down
and
scrape
their
knee
and
have
to
deal
with
it
without
a
parent
right
there.
So
more
than
anything,
I
think
this.
I
This
legislation
has
done
a
great
job
of
finding
that
balance
between
giving
parents
the
latitude
to
decide
what's
best
for
their
children,
but
also
keeping
the
the
final
say
in
the
in
the
hands
of
the
people
on
the
ground.
The
agencies
that
are
dealing
with
this
and
not
being
restricted
by
an
age
cut
off
or
some
you
know,
legislated
mandate.
So
I
think
the
message
we're
sending
to
our
parents,
especially
to
the
single
parents
out
there,
the
lower
socioeconomic
status,
the
minority
parents,
is
incredibly
encouraging
and
I
think
we
should
all
stand.
I
A
Thank
you.
They
are
unicorns
if
we
can
go
to
and
are
there
any
other
callers
in
support.
C
Ready
thank
you
chair
nguyen,
and
members
of
the
committee.
This
is
kendra
burchie
with
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
I
believe
I've
mentioned
this
committee
before,
but
my
office
represents
not
only
individuals
who
are
accused
of
crimes,
but
we
also
represent
the
parents.
In
these
432b
cases,
I've
had
the
privilege
of
also
being
a
children's
attorney
at
washa
legal
services,
as
well
as
I've
worked
at
the
university
of
nevada,
reno
teaching
a
course
on
families
and
public
policies.
C
So
I
just
say
that
to
start
with,
this
is
very
near
and
dear
to
my
heart,
this
issue,
and
I
want
to
thank
senator
harris
and
assemblywoman
hanson
for
all
of
their
hard
work
on
this
bill.
It
really
has
been
a
journey
with
several
different
amendments,
as
you've
heard,
even
today,
with
an
additional
proposed
amendment.
I
want
to
start
with.
We
absolutely
support
the
intention
of
this
bill.
It
is
greatly
needed
that
we
need
to
clarify
our
child
abuse
neglect
statutes,
not
only
in
the
dependency
system,
but
also
in
the
criminal
system.
C
It
is
very
concerning
when
we're
hearing
stories
about
individuals
whose
children's
have
been
removed
or
criminal
proceeding
has
been
initiated
because
of
things
like
somebody
of
a
child
being
outside
of
the
home,
just
unsupervised
where
there
weren't
any
other
issues.
So
we
greatly
appreciate
this
bill
and
hope
that
this
will
provide
some
additional
clarity
to
a
confusing
system
that
has
significant
consequences.
C
Just
for
your
information,
if
someone
is
convicted
of
a
child
abuse
and
neglect
case,
it
could
be
a
misdemeanor,
it
could
be
a
gross
misdemeanor
or
it
could
be
a
felony
and
the
gross
misdemeanor
felony
are
mandatory
prison
or
jail
sentences
unless
there's
an
evaluation
saying
that
they're
not
a
high
risk.
So
that's
just
what
I'm
saying:
that's
very
significant
consequences.
A
K
You
so
much-
and
this
won't
be
a
surprise,
it'll,
be
the
same
question.
I've
had
to
the
bill
sponsor
and
and
to
miss
duffy
is
so
what's
you
know
the
same
thing:
we're
gonna,
prescribe
and
rakes
this
concept,
there's
not
gonna
be
a
chronological
age,
and
so,
when
we
talk,
I
think
when
we
talk
about
sufficient
maturity
for
the
record,
how
do
you
see
that
as
being
well
defined
in
in
a
regulation.
C
Kendra
burchie
for
the
record
with
the
washington
county
public
defender's
office
through
you,
chair
and
when
to
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
I
think
that's
a
very
important
question
and
I
agree
with
the
statements
that
have
been
made
on
the
record,
and
I
would
just
note
that
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
extremely
important
is
that
it
should
not
be
the
defense
attorney
or
the
parent
who
has
to
prove
that
the
child
was
of
sufficient
maturity.
C
Just
because
of
the
way
that
our
criminal
justice
system
works
in
the
dependency
system,
which
the
owner
should
be
on
agency
to
have
to
provide
some
of
that
information.
But
I
do
believe
that.
So
that's.
I
think
something
that
we
need
to
discuss.
If
we're
going
to
have
regulations
and
that's
why
I
want
the
defense
bar
to
be
able
to
be
part
able
to
participate
in
that.
K
K
Just
follow
up
so
I
just
having
been
on
the
and
this
like
I'm.
I
think
people
are
thinking.
This
is
a
trick
question.
It's
not
just
being
on
legislative
commission
you're,
going
to
have
members
who
have
to
vote
yes
or
no,
once
these
regulations
are
put
in
front
of
them
right
and
they'll
be
three
workshops
where
they'll
be
considered.
K
Language
will
change,
but
ultimately,
like
I'm
just
trying
to
gauge.
If
a
really
regulation
comes
in
front
of
me
and-
and
it
has
a
chronological
chronological
age,
does
that
keep
with
the
intent
of
the
legislation
or
not?
I
think
I'm
hearing
no,
but
I
don't
think
I've
also
heard
anyone
definitively
say
no,
and
so
then
it
well,
I
think
I've
kind
of
heard
definitively
say
no,
so
then
I'm
guessing
the
regulations,
gonna
use
words
to
describe
maturity.
So
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
when
that
regulation.
K
When
we're
looking
at
it
did
we,
you
know
you
know
what
are
we?
What
are
we
looking
for
the
direction
for
the
agency
to
go
when
they're
writing
those
rigs,
so
I
guess
we
could
put
in
there
clearly
the
defense
attorney
for
a
parent.
Would
you
know
should
should
have
a
say
or
something
like
that,
but
I'm
not
trying
to
be
tricky,
I'm
literally
trying
to
say
like
maturity.
K
You
know,
I
think
I
I
asked
about
protective
capacities
and
I
kind
of
heard
maybe
yeah,
but
I
would
think
for
sure
protective
capacities.
And
then
you
know
what
does
that
mean
for
for
a
child?
I
would
think
that,
because
we
have
some
reference
to
ages
in
in
other
pieces
of
the
statute
of
regulation,
you
might
want
to
put
in
a
floor
like
under
three,
because
we
know
that
when
child
welfare
gets
the
call
that
we
do
have.
K
K
If
if
there
was
a
floor
of
some
kind
of
age
in
there
and
then
you've
got
a
bunch
of
gray
area,
you're
trying
to
define
and
generally
since
you
know,
432b
is
about
what
you
not
to
do
right
then
we're
defining
like
almost
kind
of
the
inverse
in
the
section,
which
is
what
you
can
do
and
so
that's
harder,
because
it's
a
different
paradigm
than
the
rest
of
the
chapters
written.
So
I'm
just
it's
a
sincere
question
for
the
record,
so
we
can
look
back
and
go.
K
C
Thank
you
for
the
record.
I
can
say
that
we
had
some
discussions
and
I
do
not-
and
I
don't
speak
for
the
sponsors
and
I'm
sure
they'll
provide
this
in
their
closing
remarks,
but
I
would
not
feel
that
having
a
age
limit
of,
for
example,
three
of
saying
that
someone
at
the
age
three
should
not
be
allowed
to
be
unsupervised
that
that
would
negate
the
intent
of
this
bill.
I
think
that
was
some
of
the
discussions
that
we
had
about
possibly
having
a
floor.
C
The
main
issue
is
it's
because
of
every
child's
different
having
that
limit
of
12
may
work
for
some
children,
but
may
not
work
for
others,
and
so
that's
why.
I
agree
with
you
that
some
of
the
terms
that
we
had
used
was
exactly
what
you're
you're,
including
in
your
remarks
of
what
to
consider
with
parental
capacity,
with
the
child's
capacity
with
classes.
C
They've
had
things
like
that
of
that
nature,
where
they
know,
as
we
discussed
the
numbers
to
call,
they
know
grandma's
down
the
street,
and
they
can
go
there
if
they
need
help
or
they
are
fully
capable
of
calling
9-1-1.
So
those
are
part
of
the
discussion
that
we
had
and
I
would
not
be
opposed
to
if
there
is
included
in
there
a
floor
that
we
discussed.
A
Thank
you,
and
I
see
also
mr
armstrong
from
dcfs
that
has
also
on
the
zoom.
I
think
he
is
here
also
to
present
testimony
in
neutral
and
also
can
be
available
to
answer
those
same
questions
that
I
believe
that
will
be
directed
to
you
by
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
or,
if
you
can
answer
them
as
a
part
of
your
testimony.
That
would
be
great
as
well.
E
Thank
you,
ross,
armstrong
administrator
for
the
division
of
child
and
family
services.
We
submitted
some
information
to
the
committee.
That's
in
dallas
about
child
neglect
in
general.
E
There's
a
lot
we've
heard
a
lot
about
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
really
help
educate
parents,
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
still
a
lot
of
good
information
out
there
in
terms
of
what
child
neglect
and
what
child
welfare
process
looks
like
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
you
can
see
that
a
lot
of
neglect
in
many
cases
ends
in
physical
or
sexual
injury
to
a
child,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
in
no
way
are
we
down
playing
the
nature
of
neglect.
E
I
also
think
it's
important
in
our
neutral
testimony
today
to
note
that
there's
no
current
prohibition
in
nevada
law
on
children
engaging
safely
in
independent
activities.
I
think
sometimes
we,
when
we're
discussing
an
issue
there
might,
it
might
seem
like
we
have
to
to
make
this
change,
because
there's
currently
some
obstacle
the
way
that
our
child
welfare
workers
in
the
field
assess
any
situation
is
there's
a
call
and
an
allegation
and
that
child
welfare
worker
goes
into
the
field
and
assess
assesses
the
entirety
of
that
situation.
E
There
does
need
to
be
a
determination
of
whether
there's
going
to
be
a
substantiation
to
the
actual
allegation
of
abuse
or
neglect,
but
really
the
model
of
child
welfare,
now
very
different
than
say
the
criminal
justice
process.
Where
the
idea
is
something
has
happened,
you
determined
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
Did
it
happen
or
not?
And
if
so,
here's
your
punishment.
The
child
welfare
system,
is
very
much
focused
on
getting
to
a
situation
that
someone
has
alerted
the
agency
to
and
working
to
determine
if
there
are
actual
ongoing
safety
threats
to
that
child's
safety.
E
We're
going
to
really
take
a
holistic
approach
at
the
family,
and
so
we
provided
that
data
to
the
committee
for
for
your
information
to
respond
to
some
of
the
questions
from
assemblyman
benitez
thompson's
questions
about
the
regulations.
E
For
the
bill
sponsors,
but
I
really
appreciated
the
concept
of
protective
capacity
generally
when
we
analyze
protective
capacity
in
the
child
affair
system.
We're
talking
about
the
parents,
ability
to
protect
the
child
from
harm,
but
taking
that
framework
of
maturity
is
really
in
my
in
my
idea,
synonymous
with
development,
the
level
of
development
and
then
adding
that
element
of
the
child's
protective
capacity
really
makes
sense.
In
terms
of
how
to
articulate
that
advice
to
the
three
different
child
welfare
agencies,
I
don't.
H
E
E
The
supervision
of
anybody
who
may
be
engaging
in
independent
activities
may
be
neglected,
that
those
regulations
really
help
educate
and
get
the
child
welfare
workers
to
view
those
particular
situations
with
certain
standards,
and
so
I
think
you
know
having
information
about
the
child's
protective
capacity
in
there
is
key
in
all
of
our
cases.
E
Again,
we
take
a
look
at
that
individual's
family
situation,
because
no
two
families
are
the
same
when
making
the
terminations
about
a
substantiation
of
allegation
of
abuse
or
neglect,
and
also
the
need
for
an
agency
to
become
involved
to
step
in
and
try
to
help
and
support
that
family,
but
maintain
safety
and
really
trying
to
get
to
the
point
of
the
division
of
china,
family
services,
vision
of
safe,
healthy
and
thriving
kids
in
every
nevada
community.
So
we
are
neutral
on
this.
E
We
appreciate
the
many
meetings
and
the
work
on
trying
to
make
sure
that
this
language
is
designed
to
be
helpful
to
parents
and
not
judgmental
to
kids.
There's
been
a
lot
of
work
from
a
lot
of
different
stakeholders.
We
certainly
appreciate
that.
I'm
of
course
happy
to
answer
any
other
clarifying
questions
that
I
might
be
able
to.
K
No,
not
at
all,
I
think
I
think,
there's
if
there's
enough
there
to
the
direction,
and
obviously
mr
armstrong
will
be
tasked
with
writing
this.
So
you
know
we'll
see
it
from
his
department
coming
forward
and
then
the
it
sounds
like
the
workshop
process
will
help
inform
the
process
as
well.
It's
just
it's
one
of
those
things,
and
it's
not
just
this
piece.
K
It's
it's
any
law
where
you're
silent
on
something
and
you're
going
to
put
a
reagan,
then
you're
no
longer
silent,
anymore,
you're
kind
of
doing
a
what's
in
and
what's
out
and
right
now,
nothing's
in
so
we're
going
to
clearly
define
some
stuff
in
by
defining
stuff
out.
So
I
I
you
know
it's
just
one
of
those
things
where
you
want
to
make
sure
you've
got
kind
of
a
bright
line
of
where
you're
going
to
walk
as
we
as
things
are
drafted.
Moving.
A
F
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
sorry,
I
wasn't
fast
enough.
This
is
jeanette
belts,
j-e-a-n-e-t-t-e
last
name
belts,
v-e-l-z
representing
the
nevada
children's
advocacy
alliance.
First
of
all,
I'd
like
to
extend
the
regrets
of
executive
director,
dr
tiffany
tyler
garner.
She
was
unable
to
attend
the
hearing
today.
F
We
would
like
to
extend
special
thanks
to
sarah
adler
for
her
diligence
and
many
many
conversations
and
texts
about
this
and
caa
definitely
looks
forward
to
working
with
dcfs
and
other
stakeholders
in
the
development
of
these
regulations
tend
to
agree
with
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
that
that's
really
where
the
meet
is
going
to
be
ultimately
and
appreciate
her
questions
in
that
regard.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
B
A
G
G
I
I
do
have
a
lot
of
faith
in
mr
armstrong
and
the
administrative
procedures
as
I
am
an
administrative
attorney,
and
so
I
believe,
through
the
workshops,
with
the
participation
of
the
experts,
they
can
definitely
nail
down
these
details
much
better
than
I
could
in
statute
and
assemblywoman
thompson.
To
answer
your
question
about
a
floor
of
three
years
old.
G
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
have
a
floor
of
three,
but
I
think
that's
probably
as
as
much
as
I
would.
I
would
be
willing
to
to
commit
when
it
came
to
a
an
age
limit,
and
I
think
that's
particularly
because
we
can
all
agree
a
three-year-old
does
not
have
that
protective
capacity
as
as
you
were,
describing
even
the
most
mature
of
of
three-year-olds,
and
so
with
that.
I
think
we're
probably
going
to
have
one
last
amendment
to
add
on
some
bill
sponsors
I
know
assemblyman
haven.
G
Would
like
to
be
added
on
which
likely
means
I
need
to
remove
myself.
I
know
assemblywoman
krasner
expressed
some
interest,
I
believe,
on
on
being
added
on
as
well,
and
so
I
will
be
working
with
assemblywoman
hanson.
A
simple
woman
nguyen
has
suggested
she'd
like
to
be
on
and
assemble
woman
peter's,
and
so
oh
look
at
that
assembled
warlow.
I
love
it
the
whole
committee,
let's
do
it
guys
I'll
be
working
with
assemblywoman
hanson
to
make
sure
we
get
you
all
amended
on
on
this
side.
G
So
thank
you
all
so
much
for
your
time
and
and
if
you
don't
mind
chair
I'd
like
to
let
us
assemble
women
hanson,
to
make
some
closing
comments.
If
she'd
like.
J
J
In
fact,
we
would
ask
them
to
reach
out
and
contact
those
parents,
maybe
person
to
person,
but
if
that's
not
possible,
of
course,
to
to
report
if
you're,
if
you're
concerned
and
and
again
this
is
the
spectrum
that
we're
talking
about
is
to
just
reaffirm
responsible
parents
that
they
have
the
ability
to
make
those
kinds
of
decisions
about
their
children
and
their
reasonable
independence.
Thank
you
again
for
your
time.
We
appreciate
the
stakeholders
involved
and
for
all
those,
including
yourselves,
that
work
hard
on
behalf
of
the
children
of
the
state
of
nevada.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
143.
At
this
time.
I
will
begin.
We
have
two
more
bills,
so
we're
going
to
power
through
all
these,
and
luckily
we
have
the
same
presenter
for
both
of
them.
So
if
I
can
welcome
senator
orrinshaw
to
assembly
health
and
human
services-
and
I
will
have
you
begin,
do
you
have
any
preference
on
which
one
you
want
to
go
with?
First.
S
Chair
whatever's
chairs
pleasure.
S
Thank
you
very
much
chairwin
and
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
health
and
human
services
for
the
record.
James
orenshaw
represents
state
senate
district
21
parts
of
henderson
unincorporated
clark
county.
Some
people,
pardon
me
senate
bill
146,
it's
a
short
bill,
but
I
think
it's
a
very
important
bill
and
it
deals
with
children
being
admitted
to
an
inpatient
mental
health
facility
being
admitted
acute,
which
is
a
scary
thing.
S
What's
going
on
oftentimes,
the
treatment
is
desperately
needed,
and
that's
why
the
child
is
being
admitted
senate
bill
146
tries
to
make
sure
that,
if
that
child
who's
being
admitted
acute
to
an
inpatient,
mental
health
facility
already
has
a
mental
health
provider
they're
already
getting
treatment,
that
they're
consulted,
that
that
provider's
consulted
and
that
if
the
child
is
to
be
admitted
that
the
the
strongest
attempts
at
continuity
of
care
do
happen.
Certainly,
I
think
many
of
us,
you
know
who
practice
either
in
juvenile
court.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
amy
conadell,
that's
spelled
a-n-y-h-o-n-o-d-e-l
and,
as
senator
oran
shaw
mentioned,
I
am
a
staff
attorney
with
legal
aid
of
southern
nevada
in
the
children's
attorneys
project,
where
I
also
serve
as
their
strategic
initiatives
manager
and
like
he
said
this
bill
is
short,
but
it
is
critical
for
our
youth
in
foster
care,
in
that
it
opens
and
solidifies
a
conduit
of
communication
between
mental
health
providers.
N
Those
who
see
a
foster
youth
regularly
and
those
who
are
seeing
the
child
in
crisis
as
they're
being
admitted
or
considered
for
admission
into
a
mental
health
facility
and
the
bill
is
short,
including
the
amendments
that
have
been
worked
on
by
the
various
stakeholders.
Now
just
walk
the
committee
through
it
really
quick.
Just
part
one
requires
the
admitting
facility
to
find
out
from
the
legal
custodian
if,
if
there
is
a
main
provider
or
treating
provider
of
mental
health
services
for
that
child
and
to
make
a
reasonable
effort
to
contact
that
child.
N
When
they
talk
the
provider,
who
usually
sees
the
child
in
the
emitted
facility
to
talk
about
the
child's
condition,
including
whether
or
not
to
admit
that
child
part,
three
then
requires
the
admitting
facility
to
try
and
get
consent
from
the
legal
custodian
as
well
as
consent
from
the
child.
To
have
this
ongoing
dialogue
with
the
main
treating
provider,
including
coordinating
discharge
planning
and
then
subpart
four
of
section.
N
One
just
says
that
if
an
admitting
facility
cannot
get
consent
from
either
the
legal
custodian
or
the
child
that
they
can
still
take
the
necessary
actions,
including
committee,
communicating
with
that
main
treating
provider,
if
it's
in
the
child's
health
and
welfare
to
either
maintain
it
or
improve
it.
And
so
this
bill
is
really
brought
out
of
our
real
world
experiences
down
here,
representing
children
in
clark
county
in
foster
care,
and
that
is
in
some
cases.
We
see
where
this
communication
would
have
either
prevented
an
admission.
N
I
have
a
client
actually
a
former
client
who
was
facing
going
with
her
biological
father
and
made
some
comments
that
were
considered
to
be
enough
to
admit
her
to
a
facility.
But
when
her
primary
treating
therapist
got
involved,
it
turns
out
the
comments
were
really
not
about
a
crisis,
but
her.
You
know
repeating
something
she
had
heard.
Someone
else
say
to
avoid
being
moved
and
we
were
able
to
address
her
concerns
without
her
being
admitted
to
this
facility.
N
Another
client
of
mine,
who
he's
still
my
client,
he
was
admitted
to
a
facility
and
was
given
a
new
medication
which
really
helped
his
behaviors
some
of
the
concerns
he
was
able
to
address
some
of
his
impulsivity
and
his
anger,
but
for
whatever
reason,
as
he
was
discharged,
the
fact
that
he
had
a
new
medication
did
not
get
relayed
to
his
ongoing
providers,
his
therapist
or
his
doctors.
N
So
he
had
an
outburst
which
caused
him
to
disrupt.
He
was
with
an
uncle
at
the
time
he
was
new
to
raising
children.
He
had
no
children
of
his
own
and
new
to
my
client's
diagnosis
and
because
of
the
intensity
of
the
outburst
and
just
an
inability
to
contain
it.
He
was
afraid
to
take
this
client
of
mine
back
into
his
home.
So
if
we
had
had
more
of
a
coordination
of
discharge
planning,
we
might
have
been
able
to
avert
this
crisis
now
there.
This
isn't
a
way
to
undermine
the
care
that
these
hospitals
provide.
N
S
Chair,
I
think
miss
honeydel
and
ms
ms
block
and
I
are
ready
for
questions.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
good
to
see
you
senator
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
have
a
question
specifically
on
section
one
number:
four:
if
under
failure
of
a
person
or
entity
having
legal
custody
of
a
child
or
a
child
to
provide
consent,
then
this
gives
directives
to
go
ahead
and
proceed
anyway,
based
on
if
it
was
necessary
to
protect
or
improve
the
health
or
welfare
of
the
child.
F
My
question
is:
if
the
person
or
entity
having
legal
custody
said
no,
we
don't
want
you
to
do
that,
where's
the
so
this
will
supersede
if
they
say
no,
you
can't
do
that
you're
going
to
go
ahead
and
do
it
anyway,
anyway.
Is
that
what
I'm
reading
here.
S
James
orange
all
senate
district
21
to
you
and
through
you,
chair
to
assemblywoman
titus.
S
Okay,
thank
you,
assemblyman
titus,
the
way,
the
way
I
read
it
and
please
correct
me,
ms
honadell
or
legal.
If
I'm
misinterpreting
it
the
way,
I
read
it
the
objection
of
the
guardian
to
the
contact
between
the
the
treating
mental
health
provider
prior
to
admission
to
the
facility
that
conversation
could
still
happen,
even
if
there's
an
objection
and
that's
to
try
to
make
sure
there's
continuity
of
care.
So
I
think
that
that
that's
how
I
read
it
and
if
I'm
misinterpreting
it
ms
hondo,
please
feel
free
to
jump
in
and
correct
me.
N
This
is
amy
hanadel
for
the
record
and
just
to
agree
with
what
senator
oran
shaw
stated.
It's
just
limited
to
that
particular
part
of
the
consent.
It
would
still
allow
for
continuity
of
care
in.
F
This
case,
and
thank
you
for
that,
I
just
needed
I'm
sorry.
I
just
needed
some
clarity
today
and
I'm.
F
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarity
because
there
could
be
an
instance
in
my
mind
where
the
the
maybe
the
parent
didn't
like
the
initial
provider,
and
they
wouldn't
want
that
provider
communicating
with
another
provider.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
there
was
some
level
of
parental
control
still
involved
or
whoever
had
legal
custody.
F
S
A
No
problem:
do
we
have
any
other
questions
from
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
I'll
go
to
you
and
then
assemblywoman
thomas
next.
K
Thank
you
so
much,
and
thank
you
so
much,
mr
orange
also.
I
think
I
wanted
to
just
get
on
the
record
how
you
see
this
being
enacted
so
section
one
on
the
shell
about
asking.
I
imagine
that
that
would
just
be
a
question
one
of
the
questions
on
a
questionnaire
when
you're
kind
of
starting
that
admission
process
for
someone
where
you're
collecting,
like
demographic
information.
K
S
Assembly
meeting
test
thompson,
james
orange,
all
senate
district
21.
Certainly
I
would
want
you
know
as
much
effort
as
possible
from
the
inpatient
treatment
facility
to
try
to
to
reach
the
current
provider,
because
I
know
that
I've
had
cases
where
I've
represented
children
who
maybe
are
not
under
432
b,
but
in
the
delinquency
system
and
I've
had
parents
who
you
know
feel
that
they
were
doing
very
well
with
their
their
outpatient
mental
health
provider
prior
to
being
an
inpatient
facility
and
weren't
doing
so.
Well.
K
Okay,
okay,
perfect
and
then
on
the
the
second,
the
one
section,
one
sub
two,
so
after
they've
kind
of
asked
for
the
information
and
then
they
have
it,
it
says
the
reasonable
efforts
to
consult.
So
I
guess
that
would
when
I
think
of
typically,
when
we
think
of
reasonable
or
kind
of
due
diligence,
we
tend
to
think
of
usually
like
a
number
set
like
three
like
make
three
phone
calls
or
make
two
phone
calls.
S
James
orange
also
district
21.
I
know
that
I
think
the
chair
will
understand
this,
that
in
law
school
they
teach
us
about
the
the
reasonable
person
standard,
and
I
certainly
would
want
as
much
effort
as
possible
made
to
to
contact
that
prior
mental
health
provider.
However,
there
will
be
a
point
where
the
the
physician
or
the
treat
the
treating
healthcare
provider
at
that
inpatient
hospital
will
have
to
make
some
decisions,
try
to
stabilize
the
child.
S
So
here
I
think
that
we,
I
know
we
have
a
letter
from
the
nevada,
psychological
association,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
we're
gonna
have
any
testimony
from
them,
because
I
think
that
someone
with
that
expertise
might
be
better
suited
to
answer
that
question,
and
I
don't
know
if
miss
hannidal,
if
there,
if
you
care
to
jump
in,
but
certainly
I
think
that
there
would
be
a
point
at
which
that
the
treating
provider
at
the
inpatient
hospital
would
have
to
take
over
if
they
can't
get
a
hold
of
the
prior
mental
health
provider.
N
Yes,
madam
chair,
this
is
amy
adel
from
legal
aid
center
again,
and
I
don't
think
we
can
quantify
with
the
number.
But
what
typically
happens
is
these
children
actually
go
to
our
emergency
rooms
down
here,
while
we're
waiting
or
while
the
staff
at
the
emergency
room
or
the
legal
custodian,
is
trying
to
find
a
bed
for
them
at
a
facility
that
will
take
a
youth
and
during
that
time?
N
That
is
the
time
when
we
would
be
looking
for
once
a
facility
has
been
identified
as
a
bed
that
they
would
be
making
those
efforts
to
find
or
talk
to
or
communicate
with,
the
main
treating
provider.
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
put
a
number
necessarily,
but
it
obviously
will
depend
on
the
time
if
we're
talking
about
after
hours
or
a
weekend.
You
know
you
know,
then
maybe
making
an
effort
the
next
day
during
business
hours
or
reaching
out
to
that
physicians
and
call
service.
N
But
the
idea
would
be
to
make
those
efforts
but
also
start
bringing
you
know,
bringing
the
child
into
care,
and
I
think
any
concerns
are
then
addressed
with
the
next
part.
When
we
talk
about
coordinating
care
and
then
discharge
planning
so
that
even
if
they're,
not
an
emitting
facility
is
not
able
to
connect
with
the
main
provider
that
later
on,
they
are
connecting
with
that
provider
so
that
when
the
child
is
able
to
leave
and
there's
continuity
of
care
on
that
end,.
A
Thank
you.
Does
that
answer
your
question
and
I
believe
I
miss
tom
assemblywoman
thomas.
Did
you
have
a
question
as
well?
Thank.
M
You
chair
and
thank
you
senator
for
bringing
this
assembly.
I'm
sorry
senate
bill
to
us.
I
think
that
foster
care
youth
that
are
in
crisis
is
a
very
important
service
that
our
community
can
bring
for.
But
my
question
is,
I
believe
I
heard
clark
county.
So
is
this
just
right
regulated
to
clark
county
or
is
it
for
the
state.
S
S
M
I
appreciate
that
when
I
heard
clark
county,
I
wasn't
sure
I
was
like
why
why
is
it
just
regulated
to
clark
county
when
I'm
sure
throughout
the
state
foster
care?
You
know
youth
are
in
crisis,
so
I
appreciate
that
clarification.
Thank
you.
S
And
if
a
child,
who
we
call
a
you,
know,
dual
ward
child
who's
also
in
the
foster
care
system,
might
have
a
mental
health
crisis
and
need
to
be
admitted
acute.
Their
prior,
treating
physician
might
be
in
clark
county
or
might
be
in
washoe,
county
or
carson
city
douglas.
So
I
think
this
bill
will
be
even
more
important
because
you
could
have
a
child
at
one
of
those
facilities
or
at
you
know
some.
C
C
We
have
seen
instances
where
children
have
been
harmed
because
they
were
admitted
into
hospitals
for
these
emergency
placements
when
they're
treating
facili
our
physicians
we're
adamantly
opposed
to
it
afterwards.
I
can
speak
from
personal
experience
with
my
clients
on
that.
This
has
been
an
issue
in
washoe
county
and
so
I'd
assume
it's
occurring
across
the
state
from
what
we've
heard,
and
so
we
really
appreciate
senator
oran
shall
for
bringing
this
bill
and
championing
you
know
improving
the
lives
of
our
children.
So
we
thank
you.
We
urge
your
support.
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
any
other
testimony
and
support
here
in
the
room
going
on
it's
going
twice:
okay,
broadcast
services
if
we
could
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
take
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
146,
I
also
see
quite
a
few
people
registered
to
testify
on
this
bill
again.
Please
state
your
name
and
clearly
state
it
for
the
record
and
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes
and
let's
begin.
A
Okay,
well,
if
we
have
any
callers
in
opposition,
please
test!
Oh
wait!
I
see
miss
duffy
actually
on
the
zoom
I
forgot
to
go
there.
Do
we
have
if
we
have
any
other
people
on
the
zoom
that
want
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
146,
I
will
start
taking
you,
but
I
will
start
with
ms
duffy
go
ahead
again.
Please
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
please
limit
your
testimony
to
two
minutes.
O
Now,
it'll
be
faster
than
that
good
afternoon,
sharon
and
members.
This
is
bridget
duffy
b-r-I-g-I-d,
the
director
of
the
juvenile
division
for
the
clark
county
da's
office,
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
department
of
family
services
in
clark,
county
sb
146
is
solid
policy
in
the
best
interests
of
children
in
foster
care.
It
supports
better
coordination
of
care
between
admitting
acute
psychiatric
treatment
facilities
in
our
current
treatment
providers.
A
B
B
B
Q
Okay,
this
is
dr
laurie
drucker
with
the
nevada,
psychological
association.
I'm
sorry
it
was
having
problems
with
the
technology.
I
am
here
to
testify
in
support
of
this
legislation,
and
is
this
the
right
time
for
me
to
be
speaking.
A
Q
Okay:
okay:
I
want
to
thank
senator
orange
hall
and
the
committee
for
your
work
on
this
legislation
to
improve
the
coordination
of
care
for
foster
kids
in
nevada.
We
appreciate
that
the
language
has
expanded
to
include
notification
of
a
wider
range
of
providers
of
mental
and
behavioral
health
care
for
these
children.
A
A
At
this
time,
wonderful
and
then
do
we
have
anyone-
that's
testifying
in
neutral
on
senate
bill
146,
that's
in
the
room
here
today
seeing
none.
I
see
someone
has
unmuted
and
I
wish
I
could
see
that
name
on
there
to
see.
I
think
is
that
correct,
okay,
man,
I
might
need
glasses,
you
guys
if
we
can
go
ahead
and
please
unmute
yourself
and
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
begin
your
testimony
in
neutral.
B
A-L-E-X-I-S-T-U-C-E-Y,
I'm
a
deputy
administrator
at
the
division
of
child
and
family
services,
testifying
in
neutral
today.
I
would
also
like
to
say
that
it
has
been
a
great
pleasure
working
with
the
bill
sponsor,
as
well
as
the
stakeholders,
with
this
particular
bill,
working
through
amendments
and
really
looking
to
improve
our
continuum
of
care
and
and
process
with
this
population
through
the
important
services
that
they
need.
So
again,
just
testifying
in
neutral.
And
if
there
are
any
questions
or
comments,
I
will
be
able
to
assist
with
any
of
those.
But
thank
you.
A
B
A
Careful
so
I
will
ask
senator
orange
all
to
come
up
and
see
if
he
has
any
closing
remarks
on
senate
bill.
146.
S
Chairwin
members
of
the
committee,
james
orange
all
senate
district
21,
thank
you
for
hearing
senate
bill
146.
As
I
said,
it's
always
you
know,
scary,
when
a
child
has
to
be
admitted
accu
to
an
inpatient
treatment
facility,
sometimes
there's
a
lot
of
great
treatment
that
a
child
can
receive
there
and
it's.
It
is
the
best
best
option
for
that
child.
S
I
think
that
this
legislation,
if
it
passes
we'll
try
to
help
improve
outcomes
for
those
children
who
do
have
to
be
admitted
or
or
or
perhaps
don't
have
to
be,
but
I
think
if
that
communication
can
happen,
if
they
have
an
ongoing
treatment
provider,
there'll
be
better
outcomes,
whether
they're
admitted
or
not,
definitely
want
to
thank
bailey
bortholin
and
amy
honadell
and
jillian
block
of
legal
aid
center
and
bridget
duffy
of
the
clark
county
da's
dr
tusi,
and
many
other
stakeholders
who
worked
on
this
legislation.
We
did
amended
over
in
the
senate.
A
S
Thank
you
chair
when
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
still
james
orenshall,
I
represent
state
senate
district
21
parts
of
henderson
unincorporated
clark
county.
During
the
interim,
I
had
the
distinct
honor
of
chairing
the
interim
committee
on
child
welfare
and
juvenile
justice,
and
we
had
some
challenges.
We
were
able
to
have
six
meetings.
S
We
had
two
in-person
meetings
before
the
pandemic,
hit
over
at
the
grand
sawyer
building
with
the
teleconference
up
here
to
carson
city,
then
the
pandemic
hit,
and
we
really
weren't
sure
how
we'd
finish
all
our
work,
because
we
had
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
work
that
we
we
had
to
do
from
the
prior
session
from
bills
that
came
through
and
with
great
help
of
our
staff,
mr
guyan
patrick
gein
and
julianne
king
eileen,
o'grady,
carlio,
krent,
all
the
broadcasting
and
I.t
people
here
at
lcb.
S
We
were
able
to
continue,
have
our
meetings
and
come
up
with
10,
actually
10
10
bills,
recommendations
for
letters
on
different
issues
and
really
accomplished
a
lot
of
good
work.
Most
of
our
recommendations
were
bipartisan
and
most,
I
believe,
were
unanimous.
So
we
were
able
to
come
to
consensus
on
a
lot
of
the
work
of
the
interim
committee
and
child
welfare
in
juvenile
justice.
Vice
chair
was
assembled
women,
danielle
moreno,
who
was
prior
chair
of
that
committee
and
abele.
You
know
guided
policy
through
that
committee.
L
L
T
All
right
good
afternoon,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
this
opportunity.
Tim
burks
t-I-m-b-u-r-c-h.
I
am
the
human
services
administrator
for
clark
county.
Thank
you
for
the
indulgence
of
this
committee.
While
we
walk
through
this
short
deck,
this
change
is
a
technical
change,
so
we
thought
it
helpful
to
show
you
within
context
where
that
fits
one
of
the
primary
goals
of
child
welfare
is
the
safety,
permanency
and
well-being
of
our
children.
One
of
the
principal
tools
that
we
have
to
achieve
that
goal
are
investigations
into
reports
of
abuse
and
neglect.
T
Each
investigation
that's
conducted
should
end
in
a
disposition
of
that
investigation.
So
we
know
the
outcome.
The
dispositions
of
substantiations
help
us
frame
the
intervention
with
the
family.
What
protective
capacity
is
is
the
parent
lacking
in
this
situation?
How
can
we
help
surround
that
family
with
the
proper
resources
to
potentially
address
that
gap?
It
helps
inform
future
investigations
as
well.
T
In
case,
we
have
repeat
situations
where
a
child
comes
into
our
attention
to
examine
past
patterns,
again
always
looking
to
examine
the
protective
capacities
of
a
parent
and
then,
lastly,
when
we
do
find
that
there's
a
substantiation,
a
positive
finding
of
abuse
or
neglect
that
maltreatment
that
happened
in
that
household
report,
that
to
the
central
registry.
The
central
registry
is
important
in
that.
T
That's
where
employers
go
to
look
to
screen
individuals
who
will
be
employed
to
work
with
children
and
the
future
is
also
where
we
pull
a
lot
of
our
reporting
data
to
help
justify
our
funding
and
other
types
of
things.
I
would
call
out
that
there
were
substantiation.
I
mean
amendments
to
the
initial
bill
presented
in
the
the
senate,
that,
with
the
defense
attorneys
that
clearly
articulates
that
we're
only
as
we
have
always
only
reporting
substantiations
into
that
central
registry
next
slide.
T
T
We
screen
those
decisions
in
using
a
rubric
to
examine
the
law
and
to
see,
if
anything,
right,
that's
being
told
to
us,
rises
to
meet
the
standard
of
abuse
or
neglect
according
to
nrs432b
situations,
where
that
does
appear
to
be
the
case,
we
assign
that
to
out
for
investigation
to
a
cps
worker,
and
then
we
also
assign
a
priority
to
whether
that
person
needs
to
respond
immediately
within
the
next
three
hours
or
then
one
business
day
to
get
out
and
investigate
that.
That.
T
Next
slide,
just
to
give
you
a
quick
frame,
we
receive
a
last
this
last
year
over
25
000
calls
into
our
hotline
reporting
abuse
for
neglect.
We
less
than
half
of
those
about
11
600,
actually
wound
up
being
assigned
for
investigations
about
40,
actually
next
slide.
T
So
once
a
an
investigation
is
assigned,
we
do
go
through
a
process
and
some
of
that's
been
again
discussed
already
here
today.
We
look
to
see
if
that
family
has
central
registry
history.
If
that
person
is
in
our
case
management
system,
we
have
prior
interactions,
says:
are
there
past
history
or
patterns?
We
do
this
initial
assessment.
T
We
then
go
out
and
interview
the
alleged
victim,
the
alleged
perpetrator,
collateral
sources,
teachers,
responsible
adults
in
the
home
and
the
like.
We
move
then
into
doing
a
full
safety
assessment.
We
have
45
days
in
order
to
fully
assess
the
well-being
of
that
child
it
to
move
to
a
place
of
giving
a
disposition
right
now
when
we
enter
a
disposition
to
the
case,
we
have
two
choices
in
the
state
of
nevada
next
slide
and
those
are
substantiated
or
unsubstantiated.
T
So
substantiated
is
that
there
was
reasonable
cause
to
believe
that
abuse
or
neglect
occurred
in
this
situation,
and
the
person
that
has
been
alleged
to
be
the
perpetrator
was
responsible
for
for
said,
abuse
or
neglect
or
unsubstantiated.
This
really
means
that
there
was
insufficient
evidence.
We
could
not
establish
that
threshold
and
we
have
to
choose
one
of
the
two
of
those
dispositions
next
slide.
T
T
So
this
last
year
we
had
2
400,
substantiated
investigations
again,
and
this
is
clark
county,
specific
data.
Next
slide
this.
These
next
two
slides
are
just
to
show
you
in
context
how
other
states
deal
with
this
issue
right
now.
Currently
again,
we
have
the
two
disposition.
Types
texas
has
five
new
hampshire.
There
has
about
seven
next
slide,
missouri,
obviously
about
a
dozen
there.
California
has
three,
and
what
we've
done
is
look
more
toward
the
texas
model
next
slide.
T
So
what
we're
bringing
before
you
really
is
the
ability
to
amend
432b
300
in
section
6,
to
allow
us
to
add
the
two
following
types
unable
to
locate
or
contact
an
administrative
closure
and
then
likewise
change
the
standard
of
proof
from
reasonable
cause
to
preponderance
of
evidence,
and
that
really
just
aligns
with
current
state
policy
and
current
practice.
T
So
we're
looking
at
trying
to
align
everything
so,
as
stated
before,
families
know
exactly
what
to
expect
from
the
system
and
they
were
right
out
front
with
that
next
slide,
so
unable
to
locate
or
contact
you're
all
well
familiar
with
how
transit
some
of
our
population
can
be.
It
is
not
uncommon
for
us
to
get
a
report
of
suspected
child
abuse
or
neglect
at
a
particular
weekly,
motel
or
an
apartment,
and
even
within
the
hour
that
we
respond
to
that
call
that
family
is
unable
to
be
located
and
no
longer
in
that
facility.
T
Currently,
we
have
right
now
no
choice
but
to
label
that
unsubstantiated,
because
that's
the
only
disposition
type
that
would
lend
itself
for
the
insufficient
evidence
at
that
time.
The
unable
to
locate
or
contact
now,
if
supported,
would
allow
us
to
label
it
in
that
way,
so
that
we
know
it
hadn't
really
thoroughly
been
investigated
so
that
other
jurisdictions,
even
within
nevada,
would
see
that
there
is
a
allegation
of
child
abuse,
neglect
that
wasn't
sufficiently
investigated
and
they
can
pick
that
up
as
a
part
of
any
potential
future
interaction
with
that
family.
T
Next
slide
ministry
of
closure
really
is
just
purely
it's
out
of.
We
don't
have
the
authority
to
investigate
that
is
out
of
jurisdiction,
and
we
currently
again
substantiate
those.
Currently.
T
This
will
allow
us
to
put
an
actual
ministry
of
closure
on
a
case
that
came
to
us
for
say,
night,
county
or
another
jurisdiction
and
be
able
to
hand
that
then
properly
over
to
that
appropriate
jurisdiction
to
investigate,
while
wrapping
up
that
case
in
the
case
management
system,
so
that
we
know
that
it
was
probably
adjudicated
next
slide
again,
as
I
stated
before
from
for
members
of
the
committee.
T
This
is
a
very
technical
change,
but
we
feel
this
one
that
will
help
us
more
clearly
articulate
the
status
disposition
of
investigations
so
that
we
can
better
provide
for
the
safety,
well-being
and
permanency
of
the
children
that
we're
charged
with
providing
protection
to,
and
with
that,
I
make
myself
available
for
any
questions.
A
A
Okay,
I'm
looking
around
if
we
have
any
questions
on
this.
K
Thank
you
so
much,
and
I
appreciate
this,
and
this
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
have
something
more
than
just
substantiate
or
unsubstantiate
give
more
of
a
a
better
type
of
description
to
to
what's
happening
when
you
can't
move
forward
with
something
so
like
when,
let's
take
for
the
example
that
unable
to
determine
so,
let's
say
that
you've
got
a
call
in
regarding
sexual
abuse
of
a
child.
And
let's,
let's
say
that
child
is
six
right,
they're
they're,
of
an
age
where
they
might
not
accurately
be
a
self-reporter.
K
So
if
you
ask
them
yes
or
no,
if
they
indeed
have
been
harmed
by
a
family
member
you're
you're,
not
sure
that
they're
gonna
tell
you
yes
or
no
right,
so
so
that
kind
of
age
type
of
a
development
of
a
child
and
so
like
for
an
undetermined.
If
you,
if
you
see
some
evidence
but
you're
you're,
not
after
you've
done
investigations
and
and
you
kind
of
get
to
the
end
of
the
process
and
you're
not
able
to
have
enough
sufficient
evidence.
Would
this
be
a
case
where
you
would
say
well
unable
to
determine?
K
And
then
there
would
be
that
history
of
the
investigation
there
and
then
six
months
later,
if
another
call
comes
in
and
same
kind
of
a
thing
where
you
could,
you
would
be
able
to
look
back
and
kind
of
see
a
trend
of
of
these
kinds
of
calls
and
the
work
that
the
agency
has
done.
Would
that
be
the
right
way
for
us
to
to
think
about
how
something
like
that
would
be
used.
S
T
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
If
I
made
directly
to
this
is
gonna
be
vanilla,
thompson,
the
unable
the
changes
we're
requesting.
Currently
that
situation
you
described
would
be
unsubstantiated.
We
in
the
case
of
a
young
child
who
was
there,
was
an
allegation
of
sexual
abuse.
We
would
take
them
to
our
children's
advocacy
center,
where
we
were
co-located
with
forensic
interviewers
and
they
would
go
through
a
very
in-depth,
rigorous
process
geared
specifically
toward
the
psychology
of
a
child
and
how
you
conduct
the
interview
in
a
very
safe
way
for
them.
T
S
That
was
an
amendment
proposed
by
the
washington
county,
public
defender's
office
over
on
the
senate
side,
and
ms
burchie
was
here,
but
oh
she's
still
here,
and
we
accepted
that
amendment
to
try
to
make
sure
that
only
a
substantiation
would
go
into
that
central
registry
and
that
nothing
short
of
that
would-
and
I
think
she
might
speak
to
that
later.
M
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
senator
orrin
shaw
for
bringing
this
senate
bill
to
us.
I
feel
very
fortunate
today
to
be
among
these
committee
members
to
hear
such
bills.
I
am
really
a
child
advocate
myself,
but
my
quick
clarification
question
goes
to,
I
believe
mr
birch
had
indicated
there
is
45
days
to
assess
the
trial,
I'm
assuming
that's
the
child's
environment,
and
I
just
want
to
know
if
that
was
in
fact
the
child's
environment
and
or
the
45
days
is
that
consecutive
days.
M
T
You,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
someone
thompson,
the
yes,
the
the
assessment
is
done
of
the
child's
functioning,
the
family
functioning
parent,
protective
capacity,
the
environment,
anything
that
plays
into
the
allegation
if
it
was
an
environmental
neglect
and
allegation
that
we
certainly
environment,
will
play
a
heavy
role
in
that.
T
Although
we
assess
the
environment
for
every
investigation
and-
and
that
is
45
consecutive
days
for
us
to
be
able
to
wrap
up
those
safety
assessments
so
that
we
can
keep
in
line
with
the
practice
model
and,
of
course,
giving
parents
their
rights
and
day
in
court
in
a
timely
fashion
as
well.
A
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you.
I
have
a
question
too.
I
I
know
prior
to
this
bill
and
if
this
bill
was
in
there,
you
know
as
it
stands
right
now,
we
only
have
those
two
dispositions.
Does
that
kind
of
make
us
an
outlier
like
nationally,
like
do
other
like
states,
have
multiple
dispositions
like
this
bill
proposes.
S
James
orange
also
21.,
thank
you
for
the
question
chair.
My
recollection
of
the
presentation
during
the
interim
committee
was
that
many
states
have
you
know
more
than
just
the
the
substantiated
unsubstantiated
in
terms
of
possible
outcomes,
but
as
to
how
many
have
just
what
we
have
that.
I
don't
have
that
answer,
but
I
can
try
to
try
to
get
that
for
you
and
find
that
out.
A
Seeing
none,
I
will
go
first
to
the
room.
Is
there
anyone
here
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
376.
A
Seeing
none
I
will
see
if
there's
anyone
further
on
the
zoom
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
376.
C
C
There
were
some
concerns
that
we
initially
had
that
we
were
able
to
resolve
with
the
amendments
to
make
sure
that
if
the
one
of
the
new
deposits
or
dispositions
was
determined
that
that
information
was
not
provided
to
the
central
registry
and
then
that
information,
if
there's
anything
that
exists
in
the
central
registry,
for
an
unsubstantiated
claim
that
that's
not
provided
to
employers,
that's
our
biggest
concern
with
this
bill
that
the
additional
information
would
be
provided
and
which
has
significant
consequences
on
parents.
C
A
A
A
Finally,
I
will
go
to
neutral
testimony
on
senate
bill
376..
I
I
see
miss
tucsia
on
there.
Unmuting
herself
doesn't
appear,
there's
anyone
in
the
room.
So
if
we
can
go
to
the
zoom
so
begin
when
you're
ready.
A
B
B
again
we
appreciate
working
collaboratively
with
the
sponsors,
as
well
as
the
stakeholders
involved
in
this
bill
and
moving
forward
towards
again
looking
at
safe,
healthy
and
thriving
youth
in
every
nevada
or
in
every
nevada
home.
So
again
we
appreciate
the
collaboration
with
this
and
appreciate
everyone
again
looking
at
this
population
looking
at
their
best
well-being.
Thank
you.
A
Careful
and
do
we
have
anyone
on
the
line
in
neutral
broadcast
services.
S
Thank
you
very
much
chairwin
at
the
during
the
interim
committee.
There
was
there
were
no
opposition,
no
concerns
to
this
bill,
and
we
we
heard
the
concerns
of
the
washoe
county
public
defender's
office.
Here
during
this
session
they
have
a
family
defense
unit
that
represents
parents
in
these
actions,
and
I
do
appreciate
clark,
county
and
tim
burch,
bridget
duffy
from
the
clark
county
da's
office,
working
with
the
washington
public
defenders
and
their
family
defense
unit,
trying
to
strike
a
balance
here.
I
think
this
bill
does
give
the
dfs
workers
some.
S
You
know
extra
tools
so
that
they
have
a
little
more
knowledge
to
know
if
something
necessarily
wasn't
unsubstantiated,
but
just
the
family
wasn't
able
to
be
located
or
there
wasn't
jurisdiction
to
to
open
up
a
case
there,
but
also
to
protect
parents
where
there
is
no
substantiation,
and
I
think
that
it
makes
that
clear
in
the
law,
which
is
an
improvement.
I
definitely
want
to
thank
administrator
armstrong
who
worked
tirelessly
during
the
interim
on
that
committee,
bailey
bortolin
of
legal
aid,
aclu
hollywellborn,
I
think
we
we
came
up
with
some
good
legislation.
A
Thank
you,
senator
orenshall,
and
at
this
time
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
376
and
for
our
final
item
on
the
agenda.
It
is
public
comment,
I
don't
know
if
there's
anyone
in
the
room
that
would
like
to
testify
in
public
comment,
if
you
would
like
to
do
so,
this
would
be
the
time
to
come
up
to
the
table
kind
of
walking,
nope
walking
out
broadcast
services.
A
Wonderful,
so
at
this
time
I
will
close
public
comment.
I
just
wanted.
This
will
conclude
our
meeting
for
today.
I
want
to
remind
members
we
will
not
be
having
hhs
on
friday,
but
do
plan
on
having
a
very
busy
week
next
week
on
monday,
wednesday
and
friday
as
we
start
processing
a
lot
of
these
bills,
and
I
appreciate
your
patience
today
and
attention
to
all
the
bills
that
we
heard
and
at
this
time
the
meeting
is.