►
From YouTube: 2/26/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
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
C
A
Here
we
do
have
a
quorum
assembly.
Woman
hanson
should
be
marked
absent
excused.
Please-
and
I
know
at
some
point,
assemblyman
wheeler
is
going
to
leave
us
for
a
little
bit
and
then
come
back.
So
if
we
see
him
leave,
know
he'll
be
back
shortly
so
good
morning,
everybody
and
welcome
to
day
26
of
the
81st
session
of
the
nevada
legislature.
I
want
to
welcome
the
members
and
those
who
might
be
watching
those
are
the
members
of
the
public
who
may
be
watching
either
on
the
legislature's
website
or
on
our
very
fancy
youtube
channel.
A
Before
we
get
started
with
today's
agenda
I'll
go
over
just
a
few
housekeeping
rules
for
anyone
on
the
zoom.
Please
make
sure
you
are
muted,
if
you're,
not
speaking,
that,
helps
us
with
the
audio
feedback
for
presenters
today,
who
may
not
have
presented
in
a
format
like
this
before.
If
you
can,
please
make
sure
to
state
your
name
every
time
before
you
speak,
that'll
help
with
our
committee
secretaries,
preparing
the
minutes,
I'll,
try
to
remind
you
if
you
forget
to
do
that,
we
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
A
We
might
not
agree
on
policy,
that's
perfectly
fine,
but
we
have
to
be
respectful
to
one
another
and
to
the
legislative
process
and
then
last
members
on
the
meeting
much
many
of
us
have
multiple
devices
in
front
of
us.
Ipads
multiple
monitors
phones
laptops
to
try
to
participate
in
this
meeting,
so
please
don't
see
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
A
So
at
this
time
I
will
formally
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
115
and
before
I
hand
it
over
to
our
vice
chair
to
present
I
did
want
to
let
members
know
there
was
a
conceptual
amendment
presented.
I
believe
our
vice
chair
sent
that
out
by
email
and
it
should
be
available
on
nellis.
A
It
does
make
some
pretty
substantial
changes
to
the
bill,
so
you
want
to
make
sure
you're
working
off
of
that
copy,
and
then
I
also
want
to
welcome
to
the
committee
some
of
our
other
presenters
who
will
be
helping
the
vice
chair
present
this
morning.
So
I
would
like
to
welcome
mr
devin
reese,
miss
kathy
sakamura,
miss
kim
sarat
and
mr
andre
wade.
So
thank
thank
all
of
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
D
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair
yeager
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
I
am
assemblywoman
rochelle
nguyen.
I
represent
assembly
district
10
in
southern
nevada,
and
I
am
here
to
present
assembly
bill
115,
which
revises
provisions
to
parentage
just
for
a
little
background.
Information
on
this
bill
and
how
it
came
about
is
families
often
have
more
than
two
adults
that
actively
are
engaged
in
parental
duties
and
responsibilities,
and
these
families
should
be
afforded
certain
legal
rights
and
options
to
maintain
that
stability,
protect
their
families
and
ensure
that
the
family
relationship
is
recognized
by
law.
D
D
I
will
tell
you,
and
hopefully,
you've
had
an
opportunity
to
see
the
conceptual
amendment
that
I
emailed
out
last
night
or
had
committee
staff.
Do
it's
pretty
major
most
of
the
sections
in
the
original
bill
are
actually
being
deleted
and
new
and
or
additional
language
is
being
added
to
the
nevada
statute.
Chapter
chapter
127,
adoption
of
children.
D
I
would
we'll
be
working
off
of
that.
So
if
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
language
of
the
bill,
that
is
our
starting
place
as
many
as
you
and
as
many
of
you
know
or
will
learn.
Sometimes
the
intent
of
the
bill
doesn't
always
match
the
language
needed
to
implement
the
practice.
So
we
will
continue
to
work
with
our
local
experts
in
the
courts
that
work
in
adoption
area
that
work
in
our
family
kurtz
to
make
sure
that
this
language
matches
the
spirit
of
the
bill.
D
With
your
permission
chair,
I
would
like
to
share
some
time
with
devin
reece,
a
reno
city,
councilman,
kathy
sakamura,
with
the
national
center
for
lesbian
rights
and
as
well
as
kim
sarat,
who
is
with
the
family,
lost
section
of
the
state
bar
in
nevada,
and
really
really
practices
actually
in
this
area.
Family
law
and
it's
really
helped
craft
the
language.
So
the
intent
matches
what
we
want
implemented
by
our
courts
when
they
are
using
the
discretion.
D
With
this
section,
this
new
added
section
and
additionally,
last
but
not
least,
we
also
have
andre
wade
the
state
director
with
silver
state
equality,
and
they
will
be
here
to
provide
some
additional
background
and
contextual
information
as
well
as
address
any
concerns
with
the
legal
and
technical
aspects
of
the
bill.
And
with
that
I
will
first
turn
this
over.
To
reno
city
councilman,
devin
reese,
I
know
that
he
has
an
appointment
to
get
to.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
hear
his
story
because
it
is
powerful.
D
A
E
Well,
thank
you,
devon,
reese,
renault
city
council,
member
for
the
record,
although
this
morning,
I'm
here
in
my
personal
capacity,
I
want
to
thank
you,
chairman,
yeager,
vice
chairwin,
and
also
the
assembly
members
here
today
for
taking
up
this
important
legislation,
I'm
humbled
to
support,
ab115
and
believe
strongly
that
av-115
creates
framework
for
all
families
to
gain
the
legal
recognition
they
deserve.
I'm
just
going
to
share
with
you
my
own
personal
story,
so
you
can
see
how
this
bill
might
impact
a
family
like
mine.
E
E
We
quickly
had
two
more
children,
kate
and
thomas
and
kj
now,
and
we
raised
them
here
in
reno
in
2006.
Our
lives
took
a
very
a
different
turn.
As
I
came
out
as
gay
to
my
wife,
the
next
several
years
were
complicated
and
at
times
very
messy,
but
we
never
lost
sight
of
how
important
our
family
was
to
us.
E
Sadly,
our
lives
were
forever
altered
by
the
word.
No
family
wants
to
hear,
which
is
cancer.
Emily
was
diagnosed
with
stage
four
colon
cancer
at
the
age
of
36..
E
The
next
several
years
looked
very
much
like
the
prior
years
with
us
shuttling
from
basketball
to
soccer
I
working
as
a
lawyer,
but
all
the
while
emily
struggled
to
fight
a
very
insidious
disease.
Diagnosion
diagnosis,
remission
recurrence,
those
became
the
constant
themes
of
our
household
felipe.
My
husband
became
our
children's
primary
caregiver,
chauffeur,
tutor
mentor
friend
and
dad.
E
Her
death
left
a
huge
hole
for
all
of
us
and
we
struggled
and
we
struggle
even
today,
to
fill
the
gap.
That's
left
in
our
lives.
She
was
radiant,
her
motto
was:
live
life,
love
life
impact
others
and
before
emily
died,
she
had
several
important
requests,
but
her
most
important
request
was
that
felipe
adopt
our
children.
You
see
emily
always
believed
strongly
that
we
were
a
family.
E
We
may
have
been
a
family
with
one
mom
and
two
dads,
but
we
were
a
family
and
she
always
felt
it
was
in
the
best
interest
of
our
children
that
they
have
three
parents.
Unfortunately,
while
she
was
living,
this
was
not
an
available
legal
option
for
us
and
it
created
lots
of
headaches
and
heartaches
during
the
period
of
time
that
she
was
fighting
her
cancer
emily's
wish,
fortunately,
was
fulfilled
about
a
year
after
her
passing
at
a
small
gathering
at
the
courthouse
with
judge
grossman
and
today,
emily's
children
have
two
dads
me
and
felipe.
E
I
believe
this
will
allow
families
like
ours
to
have
the
protections
they
so
deservedly
should
have,
and
I
also
believe
it's
part
of
emily's
legacy
of
impacting
others.
So
again,
I
thank
you
for
the
time
to
present
this
morning
and
appreciate
your
consideration.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
reese,
for
sharing
that
personal
story
and
obviously
we're
very
sorry
for
your
loss.
I
think
many
of
us
who
know
you
followed
emily
in
her
her
years,
long
battle
and
again
just
really
sorry
for
your
loss
and
thank
you
for
sharing,
so
vice
chairwin,
I'm
assuming
you'd
like
to
go
in
the
order
that
you
introduced
speakers
earlier.
Is
that
correct
so
would
it
be
miss
sakamura
next.
D
A
F
Yeah,
thank
you
very
much
I'll
just
say
a
couple
of
words:
andre
wade,
a-n-d-r-e-w-a-d-e
state
director
for
service
data
quality,
we're
a
statewide,
lgbtq
civil
rights
organization
here
in
nevada,
as
the
assemblywoman
mentioned
in
her
opening
statements,
families
look
different,
there's
a
lot
of
diversity
in
families
and
the
way
that
families
form.
F
Sometimes
you
will
have
a
same
gender
marriage
with-
let's
say
two
women,
as
example,
reach
out
to
their
male
friend
to
help
conceive
a
child,
and
not
only
will
that
male
friend
be
wanting
to
help,
but
will
also
want
to
have
equal
parenting
duties
and
share
those
duties
and
it'd
be
great
for
a
family
situation
like
that
to
have
legal
protections
under
the
law
by
way
of
adoption.
F
So,
according
to
a
brief
release,
this
month
by
the
united
states
census
bureau,
the
american
community
survey
determined
that
nevada
is
one
of
the
11
states,
plus
the
district
of
columbia,
with
a
higher
percentage
than
the
national
percentage
in
2019
of
same-sex
couples.
Households
that
have
children.
So,
although
the
census
data
does
not
capture
households
where
multi-parent
situations
occur
and
because
only
relationships
to
the
household
was
collected,
we
do
know
that
same
gender
couples
are
more
likely
than
their
opposite
couple
cohorts
to
form
families
through
adoption.
F
F
And
so
ultimately,
we
know
that
these
provisions,
once
in
place,
will
ensure
that
children
will
be
safe
and
will
care
for
because,
of
course,
they're
at
the
center
of
these
modern
families,
and
we
want
these
protections
to
be
in
place.
So
we
urge
you
to
please
support
assembly
bill
115,
as
we
do,
and
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
testify
today.
D
G
Thank
you
so
much
good
morning.
Thank
you,
chair
and
members.
I
have
had
the
opportunity
to
be
involved
with
a
number
of
states
developments
of
similar
laws,
recognizing
that
there
are
families
who
have
more
than
two
parents
and
that
some
recognition
and
ability
of
these
families
to
be
protected
and
given
the
same
dignity
and
respect
as
other
families
is
vital
for
these
children's
well-being,
and
you
know
as
assembly
member
win
mentioned.
G
It
is
similar
to
ways
that
some
other
states
have
done
this
similar
to
how
california
has
had
this
law
now
for
many
years,
allowing
both
adoption
and
parentage
recognition
of
children
with
more
than
two
parents
and
there's
a
number
of
other
states
that
have
laws
recognizing
that
children
can
have
more
than
two
parents
as
well.
It's
also
currently
in
the
2017
uniform
parentage
act,
which
has
been
adopted
by
a
number
of
states,
and
so
there
are
a
growing
number
of
states
recognizing
this
and
taking
steps
to
affirmatively
address
these
families
needs.
G
C
D
Oh
I'm
sorry
and
share
with
your
permission
if
we
could
go
last
to
but
definitely
not
least,
to
kim
sarat.
She
is
here
with
the
family
loss
section
of
the
state
bar
of
nevada.
D
She
has
worked
extensively
in
the
area
of
family
law
and
particularly
with
these
issues,
she's,
actually
the
one
that
brought
devin's
like
story
to
light,
and
I
think
it's
a
very
powerful
story
about
how
they
attempted
to
recognize
all
three
parents,
as
parents
of
their
children
and,
unfortunately,
were
not
able
to
until
you
know
there
is-
and
I
think,
to
this
day,
the
birth
certificate
and
the
adoption
stuff
only
has
two
parents
on
it
where
they
should
have
three,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
this
over
to
kim,
to
kind
of
go
through
some
of
the
language
or
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have
regarding
the
language
or
the
proposed
language
and
how
that
works
in
practice,
and
I
think
she
can
also
give
you
some
broad
perspective
on
other
families
that
this
might
impact
and
in
our
state.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair.
Welcome
back
to
the
committee
miss
sarat
and
committee.
I
wanted
to
tell
you
when
we
heard
a
bill
a
couple
days
ago
and
we
mentioned
the
hague
convention
and
I
told
you
we
had
discussed
it
before
that
was
actually
from
miss
sarat
one
of
her
prior
bills
that
she
presented
in
the
assembly
judiciary
committee,
so
we're
already
coming
full
circle
here
on
week,
four
of
the
legislature
welcome
back
to
the
committee.
It's
good
to
see
you
and
please
provide
your
testimony.
H
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
I
appreciate
that
you're
right
we're
coming
full
circle.
Nothing
like
listening
to
me
too
many
years
in
a
row,
but
hey
kimberly,
serrat
s-u-r-r-a-t-t,
to
clear
up
something.
Yes,
I
serve
on
the
family
law
executive
council
for
the
state
bar
of
nevada.
I
am
not
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
section.
H
We
have
massive
amounts
of
procedures.
In
order
to
do
so,
we
have
to
put
votes
out.
We
have
not
done
that
with
this,
though,
with
the
state
bar.
However,
I'm
in
sorry
about
that,
please,
oh
it's!
Okay!
I
just
gotta
make
sure
I'm
real
clear
on
the
record.
I
I
am
an
unpaid
lobbyist
with
the
nevada
justice
association
and
the
nevada
justice
association
is
behind
this
bill
and
I
can
speak
on
behalf
of
that
domestic
committee.
H
As
stated
before,
we
we
gutted
all
the
language.
So
to
give
some
clarification
on
that,
we
didn't
hit
the
mark
on
the
first
draft
of
this
bill
and
what
the
intent
was.
It
was
not
bad
language.
It
was
decent
language,
it
was
scattered
throughout
all
the
chapters,
but
it
isn't
language
that
we
were
aiming
for.
We
weren't
aiming
for
in
a
custody
case
to
have
other
family
members,
be
able
to
access
parentage
without
going
through
an
actual
parenting
procedure.
H
We
want
them
to
become
parents
either
through
adoption
or
if
we
do
have
a
reproductive
chapter
too,
which
is
a
different
conversation,
but
that
chapter
already
allows
for
more
than
two
parents
by
it
by
the
nature
of
its
own
language.
So
the
intent
was
to
go
into
straight
into
the
adoption
chapter
and
make
the
changes
needed
to
say
that
we
weren't
limited
to
just
two
parents,
the
key
phrase.
H
The
key
sentence
that
needed
to
be
changed
is
in
nrs,
127.030,
section
1,
where
the
first
sentence
states,
the
old
language,
was
any
adults,
any
adult
person
singular
or
any
two
persons
married
to
each
other,
may
petition
the
district
court
of
any
county
of
the
state
for
lead
to
adopt
a
child.
That's
the
key
sentence
that
needed
to
be
changed
and
modified
in
order
to
allow
attorneys
like
myself,
who
do
family
law
to
be
able
to
access
the
courts
and
give
the
courts
the
flexibility
to
allow
more
than
two
parents.
H
The
last
part
of
that
is
that
each
prospective
adopting
adult
and
each
legal
parent
seeking
to
retain
their
parental
rights
must
be
joined
as
a
petitioner
that
may
seem
benign,
but
in
my
world,
as
a
family
law
attorney,
that
is
not
a
benign
sentence
that
is
incredibly
important
through
my
practice
as
adoption
as
an
adoption
attorney,
I
actually
just
a
month
ago,
received
a
call
from
another
attorney
saying
hey.
H
So
if
I
have
a
step
parent
who's
adopting
do
I
have
to
make
the
the
parent
who
is
keeping
their
parental
rights
a
petitioner
in
the
case-
and
I
said
you
know
it's
interesting-
that
chapter
silence
on
that
I've
always
done
it
in
practice.
It's
something!
That's
silent!
That
attorneys,
who
do
a
lot
of
this
work,
know.
C
H
And
we
do
it
because,
obviously
the
parent
who
is
retaining
their
rights
needs
to
give
consent
and
needs
to
be
part
of
the
case,
and
so
what
we're
seeing
by
this?
What
is
really
critical
in
this
is
that
the
the
existing
legal
parents
of
the
child
need
to
consent.
So
for
any
concerns
that
may
be
out
there
that
somebody
can
insert
themselves
as
a
parent
through
the
these
changes
they
can't
they
can't
force
themselves
on
two
parents.
H
H
The
illegal
parents
have
to
consent
there
there's
numerous
other
changes
in
the
conceptual
amendment
and
really
all
of
the
additional
changes
go
along
with
along
the
lines
of
making
sure
that
consent
is
available,
making
sure
the
language
the
you
know
from
singular
to
plural,
to
make
sure
that
we
just
cleaned
up
that
it's
the
legal
parents
consenting
to
add
an
additional
parent,
or
it
could
be
that
three
parents
are
coming
in
to
adopt
a
different
scenarios.
So,
as
the
assembly
woman
alluded
to,
I
can
give
you
lots
of
examples.
H
I
choke
up
when
I
think
about
city
councilman
rhys,
because
emily
was
a
good
friend
of
mine.
We
had
lots
of
talks
about
this,
because
I,
my
son,
has
a
stepmother
who
I
adore,
who
is
the
most
amazing
human
being
on
the
planet,
and
would
I
like
her
to
be
a
mother?
Yes,
if
I
pass
away,
if
I
pass
away,
do
I
want
to
be
removed
from
the
birth
certificate
of
my
son?
H
H
I
should
remain
as
his
mother
and
others
who
have
legal
responsibility
or
want
to
take
over
legal
responsibility,
for
my
son
should
be
added
in,
but
not
have
me
removed
as
a
parent
it.
This
bill
has
a
very
critical
element
to
that.
It
allows
me
to
live
into
eternity
as
his
mother.
I
have
lots
of
scenarios
where
both
birth
parents
passed
away
and
both
sets
of
grandparents
want
to
adopt
they're
too
they're
elderly.
H
That's
also
something
that
should
not
happen
in
life
just
because
their
parents
passed
away
doesn't
mean
that
you
should
sever
the
inheritance
rights
sever
that
link,
and
it's
important
that,
if
both
parents,
if
the
original
legal
parent
stayed
on
that
birth
certificate,
there
wouldn't
be
a
severance
of
that.
The
the
inheritance
rights
would
stay
intact
and
the
child
would
continue
to
be
a
parent
or
be
a
child
of
both
sides
of
the
family,
I'm
getting
choked
up.
H
My
goodness,
I
didn't
think
it
would
be
this
bad
for
me,
but
this
bill's
really
important
to
me.
Obviously
one
last
thing
that
I
want
to
throw
in
there
is
that
we
did
talk
to
vital
records.
We
had
a
very
good
meeting
with
them
about
the
birth
certificates,
about
the
functionality
of
being
able
to
do
this,
also
to
prove
to
make
sure
we
weren't
going
to
have
a
fiscal
note.
They're
not
concerned,
they
obviously
have
not
put
a
fiscal
note
on
here
and
they
it
is
feasible.
H
They
are
able
to
do
this
for
us
they
have
the
means
they
were
happy
to
do
it.
They
were
excited
to
do
it
and
we
are
not
concerned
in
that
area.
We
had
some
phone
calls
with
child
protective
services,
some
of
the
district
attorneys
and
the
concerns
all
came
from
the
original
language.
Once
I
explained
the
intent
with
the
amendment.
H
Those
concerns
disappeared,
however,
with
the
new
language,
because
it
is
a
complete
gut.
I
I
I
will
field
any
questions
and
I
we
will
I'm
not
going
to
presume.
I
got
it
right
on
my
first
draw
through
this,
because
I
had
to
draft
it
from
scratch
to
replace
the
original
language.
So,
knowing
that
cherry
yaker,
we
will
entertain
amendments.
We
will
entertain
the
fact
that
maybe
I
got
it
wrong
in
the
drafting
process.
H
A
You
thank
you
for,
for
your
testimony,
appreciate
it
and
thank
you
to
to
all
of
you
who
helped
present
the
bill
this
morning.
There
are
some
questions
I
have
a
couple
I
want
to
ask
while
they're
on
my
mind,
I
don't
practice
in
this
area
of
law
and
obviously,
mr
at
you
are
the
expert
and
so
something
you
said
to
me
something
you
said
in
your
testimony
sort
of
struck
me
because
I
didn't
realize
this,
and
I
want
to
confirm
that
I
got
it
right.
A
H
Yes,
unfortunately,
the
way
it
works
right
now,
I'm
sorry
kimberly
sarat
for
the
record.
Yes,
chairman
yeager.
That
is
the
way
it
works.
When
right
now,
it's
a
clear
cut.
H
When
somebody
adopts
the
child's
prior
parents
in
legal
circumstances,
inheritance
rights
are
severed
completely
and
the
new
individuals
adopt.
Now
you
do
not
have
to
go,
amend
the
birth
certificate
and
I
I
believe
we
probably
don't
have
city
councilman
reese
on
the
phone
anymore,
but
that
that
was
the
solution
there
is.
You
can
get
a
court
order
for
the
adoption
and
just
not
amend
the
birth
certificate.
H
You
have
court
order,
saying
you
have
legal
rights
and
you
can,
but
you
know
that
birth
certificate
by
not
amending
it.
It's
just
you're
doing
it
out
of
respect,
but
you
know:
can
you
go
out
in
the
world
and
function
without
a
birth
certificate?
Yeah
you
can
get
away
with
using
a
court
order
as
much
as
possible,
but
we
all
know
that
when
you
have
a
birth
certificate
and
your
names
listed
on
it
life's
a
little
bit
easier
for
you
to
function
in
the
world.
D
And
city
councilman
reece
is
still
on
the
call
if
he
has
any
statements
on
that.
E
Yes,
devin
reese
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
your
question.
It
was
absolutely
that
way.
There
was
my
children,
of
course,
are
emily's
children
and
our
children,
and
so
we
did
not
change
the
birth
certificate
in
that
way,
and
so
it
is
a
strange
wrinkle
in
nevada
law
that
could
be
corrected
with
the
bill.
A
Great,
thank
you
and
then
the
other
question
I
have
probably
for
miss
suret
as
well.
You
obviously
indicated
that
you
know
the
parents.
Legal
parents
have
to
consent
that
someone
can't
just
sort
of
force
their
way
into
this
and
again
I
I've
never
participated
in
one
of
these
proceedings,
but
I've
heard
that
you
know
adoptions
can
take
quite
quite
a
long
amount
of
time
and
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
give
the
committee
just
sort
of
a
sense
of
if
there
is
a
typical.
A
I
know
every
case
is
different,
but
generally
you
know
how:
how
long
does
this
process
take?
How
much
is
a
judge
involved?
How
much
does
it
matter
about
a
parent
get
a
parent
if
a
parent
doesn't
consent?
Is
the
adoption
just
not
going
to
happen
or
does
judge
have
flexibility
there?
If
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
process,
please.
H
Yes,
chairman
yeager
kim
sarat
for
the
record
to
be
clear,
so
we've
got
two
different
types
of
adoptions
that
can
occur
under
this
chapter.
H
We've
got
the
step:
parent
adoptions,
which
is
really
just
adding
in
parents
or
a
parent
or
we've
got
a
adoption
per
se,
perhaps
out
of
the
system
where
the
child's
parents
have
been
terminated
and
you're
adopting
out
of
the
system
this
bill
and
the
language
the
intent
of
it
is
that,
if
we're
in
the
system,
part
of
it,
where
we're
adopting
out
of
the
system
that
you
can
have
three
people
adopt
out
of
the
system.
If
the
court
finds
that
that's
in
that
child's
best
interest,
do
you
have
to
have
parents
consenting?
H
No,
you
don't
because
they'll
be
terminated,
however.
You'll
have
to
have
the
court
consent
right
so
out
of
the
system
where
it's
not
add
in
a
parent
in
a
step-parent
sense.
Those
adoptions
do
take
a
greater
amount
of
time.
They
include
a
home
study,
an
inspection
and
report
from
the
social
services
unit.
That's
in
that
area
reporting
to
the
court.
H
The
termination
takes
the
longest
part
of
the
adoption
process
and
that's
what
usually,
when
people
wane
about
how
bad
the
adoption
process
is.
It's
because
trying
to
terminate
the
parental
rights
of
the
abusive
and
the
abusive
or
neglectful
parents
takes
the
the
most
amount
of
time.
This
bill
won't
change
the
length
on
that
because
that
that's
a
whole
different
chapter
and
a
whole
different
issue
on
the
actual
adoption
itself.
Once
we
file
an
adoption,
we
can
get
a
hearing
within
a
reasonable
amount
of
time,
usually
30.
H
Well,
we've
got
to
wait
at
least
30
days,
but
you're,
usually
30
to
90
days
out.
We
can
get
a
hearing
with
the
court.
That's
that
side
of
it.
If
we
talk
about
the
step
parent
part
of
it,
the
step
parent
adoption
process
there
are.
There
is
language
in
the
adoption
chapter
that
allows
for
when,
when
one
of
the
petitioners
is
within
the
third
degree
of
consanguinity
of
the
child,
then
we
can
waive
the
report
waive
the
home
study
and
it's
a
it's
a
shortcut
process
for
step
parent
adoptions.
H
So,
if
we're
adding
in
a
third
or
fourth
parent
but
you've
got
a
consenting
parent,
that's
keeping
their
parental
rights,
it's
a
shortcut
process
and
we
don't
have
to
do
the
home
study,
part
of
it,
and
we
don't
have
to
go
through
that
process.
Pursuant
to
the
adoption
chapter
right
now,
it
still
requires
a
hearing
in
front
of
the
court.
H
There
has
been
a
lot
of
complaints
over
the
years
by
step
parents
and
parents
about
having
to
go
to
a
hearing
for
those
proceedings
when
you've
got
a
consenting
parent.
If
everybody's
consenting
it's
an
easy
process,
they
intended
this
bill
was
for
to
add
in
additional
parents.
H
We
show
up
for
all
of
five
to
15
minutes
and
the
only
reason
it
would
take
15
minutes
is
maybe
pictures
and
glenn
gladhanding
with
the
judge
to
do
those
hearings
and
they
pay
attorneys
a
lot
of
money
to
do
that,
and
I
noticed
that
parents
wouldn't
mind
or
their
parents.
They
don't
have
to
be
step.
Parents
under
this
bill,
but
just
other
parents
with
a
consenting
parent
would
not
mind
getting
rid
of
the
hearing
requirement.
A
Thank
you
and
just
a
quick
follow-up
on
that.
I'm
assuming
that
you've
never
seen
a
scenario
where
you
have
parents
consenting
all
consenting
and
then
you
go
in
front
of
the
judge
and
the
judge
says
says
no.
It
sounds
like
it's
pretty
much
a
go.
If
everyone's
consenting
is
that
your
experience.
H
That's
correct,
I
have
not
I
it's
always
in
the
cases
where
somebody's
trying
to
adopt
a
child
out
of
the
system
and
they
don't
pass
the
home
study.
Maybe
they
have
a
criminal
record
or
something
else
that's
going
on
there
and
I
have
not
in
these
and
that
this
kim's
wrap
for
the
record.
Sorry,
jerry
jaeger.
A
Yeah
we're
all
getting
used
to
this
again
and
you
know,
before
I
hand
it
over
for
other
questions.
I
did
want
to
make
sure
I
know
we
have
some
newer
members
on
the
committee
that
you
understand
the
difference
there
there's
two
type
of
adoptions
and
and
the
one
that
we're
not
talking
about
today
is
a
scenario
when,
where
you
have
a
child
in
the
basically,
the
child
welfare
system
and
the
parental
rights
are
terminated
for
some
reason,
because
of
abuse
and
neglect,
this
bill
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
that
process.
A
That'll
sort
of
continue
the
way
it
is
this
bill
has
to
do
with
consenting
parents
whose
rights
are
not
being
terminated,
so
they're
going
to
remain
on
as
parents.
So
hopefully
that
provides
some
clarification.
The
the
termination
of
parental
rights
procedure
may
be
something
we
discuss
in
later
bills.
Occasionally
we
get
bills
in
this
committee
touching
on
that
and
it's
a
lot
more
complicated
process.
A
Okay,
so
I've
got
questions
so
far
and
I'll
just
kind
of
go
with
the
order
I
have
at
the
moment
so
we'll
start
with
assembly
member
miller
and
then
assemblywoman
cohen,
summers,
armstrong
and
krasner
so
assembly
member
miller,
please
ask
your
question.
I
I
With
that
in
mind,
I
do
have
a
question
as
to
one
a
question
of
just
clarity
for
myself,
and
that
is
when
a
step
parent
I
mean
when
there
is
step,
parents
have
to
go
through
the
adoption
process
to
be
covered
by
this
law.
I
A
H
Thank
you
kimberly
serap
for
the
record
assemblyman
miller.
Yes,
that
parents
have
to
go
through
the
adoption
process.
That
was
kind
of
that
last
comment,
which
is
it
wouldn't
hurt
to
eliminate
the
hearings
on
that,
because
it's
kind
of
ridiculous
and
silly.
At
that
point,
when
everybody's
consenting.
I
Got
you
thank
you
and
then
just
my
next
question
is
directly
about
like
divorce,
so
even
in
my
family,
I
am,
I
grew
up
in
a
in
a
family
where
my
parents
have
multiple
divorces,
even
though
I
love
my
step
parents
and
we
still
get
along
and
love
each
other
to
this
day.
I
I
hope
my
mother
does
not
kill
me
or
my
father
does
not
kill
me
for
sharing
this
information,
but
I
am
curious
to
know
after
say
the
divorce
or
the
separation
of
a
family,
which
is
a
very
real
thing
that
we
know
happens
every
day.
How
does
how
does
the
law
then
affect?
Do
they
have
to
go
through
custody
hearings
and
things
like
that,
and
and
what
do
we
foresee
the
I
guess,
the
impact
of
that
being.
H
Kimberly
sarat
for
the
record,
assemblyman
miller.
Yes,
so
once
you
become
a
parent
once
you
adopt
you're
a
parent,
that's
all
there
is
to
it.
So
there
is
the
complexity
of
within
a
divorce
matter,
additional
custody
proceedings
to
deal
with
the
step
parents
and
visitation
time
with
the
step
parents
and
how
custody
will
be
delved
out.
H
That
is
the
concern
for
you
know.
If
you
talk
to
a
regular
divorce
attorney,
they're
going
to
say:
oh,
my
goodness
more
work,
but
the
reality
is
we
have
that
work
anyways,
because
we
have
step
parents
trying
to
use
the
third
party
visitation
chapter
in
order
to
get
that
time
with
the
child
that
they
literally
raised
from
an
infant
up
to
16
years
old
and
now
they're
getting
cut
off
because
they
had
no
parental
rights.
H
You
know
this
is
a
major
step.
I
mean
parents
will
need
to
stop
and
think
about
the
adoption
process,
because
it
makes
you
a
full
parent
with
all
the
rights
and
responsibilities,
so
responsibilities,
kind
of
being
the
key
word
child
support
and
everything
else
you
raise
this
child.
You
want
to
become
a
parent
you're,
going
to
adopt
you're
going
to
have
everything
that
comes
with
it.
A
Yes,
please,
ms
sakamura,
please
go
ahead.
Thank.
G
Also
washington,
state,
vermont
maine
has
had
this
law
for
a
number
of
years
and
in
fact,
louisiana
has
had
a
law
that
allows
three
parents
in
some
situations
for
decades,
and
so
we
do
know
how
this
plays
out
in
other
states,
which
is
that
there
are
relatively
few
families
who
fall
into
these
categories
and
as
as
kim
serat
mentioned,
everyone
is
a
parent
who
has
full
rights
to
custody
and
full
obligation
to
provide
child
support.
G
But
it
is
in
many
ways
not
more
complicated
than
between
two
parents,
where
you
have
other
people
who
have
close
relationships
with
the
child,
seeking
to
have
visitation
in
some
way
anyway,
and
that
courts
have
looked
at
the
situation.
Sometimes
they
may
decide
that
their
two
parents
should
have
joint,
essentially
share
most
of
the
primary
custody
and
some
another
parent
doesn't
have
as
much
of
a
role
and
should
have
more
limited
visitation.
G
Typically
in
families
with
multiple
parents,
there
are
some
parents
who
don't
play
as
much
of
a
role
in
the
day-to-day
care
of
the
child,
and
it
is
not
a
difficult
question
and
the
quest
the
cases
that
actually
go
to
trial
or
some
sort
of
dispute
in
custody
are
always
a
minority
of
cases.
It's
about.
15
of
cases
is
the
sort
of
rule
of
thumb
that
people
say
are
highly
contested,
and
that
seems
to
play
out.
Similarly,
in
cases
with
multiple
parents.
J
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
all
for
the
presentation
and
thank
you
especially
councilman
reece,
for
sharing
your
family
story.
My
question
is
about
service
requirements
with
siblings
because,
as
we
know
with
with
families,
we
all
often
have
siblings
with
different
parents,
we're
not
the
same
combination
of
parents.
So
can
you
please
address
if,
if
we're
going
to
have
the
requirements
of
of
notice
to
have
siblings
or
a
sibling,
who
maybe
is,
is
already
an
adult?
So
isn't
part
of
the
the
concern
about
adoption.
H
Yes,
thank
you
assemblywoman
cohen.
This
is
kim
sarat
for
the
record.
You
know
on
on
the
adoption
when
you
have
a
step
parent
adoption
or
even
an
adoption
after
termination
is
taken
care
of.
We
have
no
service
requirements
within
this
chapter
that
affect
the
sibling
part
of
it.
The
sibling
service
requirements
are
all
within
the
termination
of
parental
rights
chapter
and
all.
Regarding
that
side
of
those
cases,
none
of
that
will
be
changed.
The
priorities
of
social
services
for
pla
placement
of
children,
with
consideration
of
visitation
with
siblings,
will
all
still
be
intact.
H
Remember
we're
not,
in
this
chapter
terminating
a
parent's
rights
for
a
step
parent
adoption
for
additional
parents
to
be
added
in.
If,
if
you
have
three
people
wanting
to
adopt
out
of
the
system
through
that
adoption
process,
all
of
that
would
have
been
taken
care
of
through
the
termination,
with
notice
to
all
the
relatives
and
siblings
before
the
termination
takes
place.
J
Okay,
thank
you
and
chair
can
have
a
second
question.
J
Thank
you
also
in
nrs
127.040
with
guardians.
I
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
with
the
consent,
for
the
guardians
we're
just
talking
about
a
permanent
guardian,
not
a
temporary
guardian
is
that
are
we
differentiating.
H
Assemblywoman
calling
kim
serap
for
the
record
we
are
not
differentiating,
so
it
would
be
a
temporary
or
a
permanent
guardian.
That
the
point
here
is
that
they're,
the
ones
that
have
they
need
to
be
participating
in
that
process,
so
instead
of
notice
you're
getting
consent.
So
it
kind
of
answers
your
last
question,
which
is
anybody
else
that
that
is
raising
that
child
at
that
moment
they
need
to
consent
if
they
have,
if
they
have
that
guardianship
over
the
child.
H
Because
then
at
that
point
you
don't,
if
you
have
a
guardian
over
the
child,
the
the
parents
may
have
already
been
terminated
or
there's
something
else
going
on
there.
H
Let
me
unmute
myself
geez
kim
sarat
for
the
record
assembly,
woman
cohen.
No,
it
does
not
take
the
place
it
has
to
be.
H
If,
if
there
are
legal
parents,
they
need
to
give
consent,
so
it
may
be,
maybe
in
a
language
issue
between
section
a
and
b
with
the
or
and
it
may
be
you
and
I
need
to
think
about
the
or
on
that
and
see
if
we
need
to
be
and
if
there's
a
legal
guardian,
they
need
to
consent
that
might
be,
or
I'm
thinking
on
the
cusp
right
here
about
the
language.
H
But
I
can
take
a
look
at
that
the
or
between
section,
a
and
b
under
127.040
and
figure
out
the
right
wording
there
to
make
sure
we're
we're
hitting
the
mark.
With
your
question.
J
K
Thank
you,
cherry
yeager,
and
thank
you
all
for
the
presentation.
I
actually
think
my
question
has
been
answered,
but
I'll
ask
it
just
to
make
sure
that
I'm
really
clear.
Like
simple
men
miller,
I
had
a
mixed
family
divorce
from
my
first
husband
and
I
have
two
sons
and
we
ended
up
co-parenting.
There
were
three
dads:
two
dads
and
mom
two
dads
and
mom,
and
I
often
worried
about
what
would
have
happened
if
something
happened
to
me.
K
H
Yes,
assembly,
woman
summers,
armstrong:
this
is
kim
sarat
for
the
record.
Yes,
with
with
parental
consent,
he
couldn't
do
it
on
his
own.
You
and
your
ex
would
have
to
consent.
C
Thank
you
chair.
Can
you
hear
me
okay,
good?
So
I'm
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
because
I'm
having
difficulty
grasping
this,
I
understand
there's
the
two
different
types
of
adoption,
the
natural
parents
and
then
working
out
of
the
system.
So
my
first
question:
if
I
may,
the
natural
parents,
both
original
parents,
must
consent
to
allow
a
third
person
to
be
known
as
a
parent.
Is
that
correct.
L
H
Is
correct
so
long
as
those
parents
are
alive.
C
Okay,
so
now
working
out
of
this
system,
you
said
three
people
can
be
known
as
parents,
how
about
if
two
females,
two
males
and
then
they
want
the
grandparents
another
female
male
there's
six
of
them,
because
they
think
that
would
work
best.
Can
they
all
be?
The
natural
parents
are
known
as
the
legal
parents
for
the
child
that
they
adopt
out
of
the
system
number
one
and
number
two?
How
does
that
work
with
like
one
of
them's,
an
anti-vaxxer?
C
H
Assemblywoman
krasner,
this
is
kim
serap
for
the
record.
Let
me
break
that
into
a
couple
pieces,
so
I
can
answer
your
question.
So
the
first
part
is
about
adopting
all
the
system
and
if
you
had
just,
for
example,
six
people
that
want
to
adopt
a
child
out
of
the
system,
you
have
to
remember
that
through
this
system
they
still
have
to
get
consent
of
the
social
workers
or
who
have
custody
over
that
child.
H
The
most
likely
use
of
this
chapter
is
going
to
be
step.
Parents.
Could
you
have
three
people
who
go
into
the
court
and
say
we
want
to
adopt
this
child
and
all
three
are
not
relatives
of
the
child.
You
could
under
this
bill,
but
the
social
workers
still
have
to
consent
that
it's
in
the
best
interest
of
the
child.
H
H
When
you
get
past
that,
if
they're
cousins,
you
have
to
go
through
the
full
bore
process
of
the
home
study
and
the
inspection
and
the
report
and
the
consent
of
the
court,
so
the
court
decides
it's
not
in
the
child's
best
interest,
because
they're
all
over
the
place
and
there's
too
many
of
them,
and
it's
not
going
to
make
sense
for
the
child
they're
not
going
to
consent
to
it.
It's
not
going
to
be
approved.
H
It
probably
won't
even
make
it
through
social
services,
saying
they're
going
to
assign
them
the
child
to
those
parents
as
potential
adoptive
parents.
The
on
the
the
complexity
of
child
support
and
custody-
yeah
you're-
probably
going
to
have
that,
but
we
also
have
the
complexity
of
third
third-party
visitation
actions
that
are
separate
from
the
divorce.
This
would
you
know
minimize
that
and
at
least
get
to
the
heart
of
the
fact
that
when
they
did
this
adoption
and
more
than
two
parents
decide
there
should
be
more
than
two
parents.
H
They
decide
that
was
already
in
the
best
interest
of
that
child
and
the
court
doesn't
have
to
make
that
analysis.
They're
jumping
to
the
heart
of
where
should
this
child
be?
Who
should
be
paying
child
support?
And
you
should
not.
C
Follow-Up
chair,
so
so
I
mean,
but
if
you
can
have
three
people
adopting
out
of
this
system,
why
not
four?
You
know
what
what
would
be
the
rationale
and
not
they
all
get
along
really
well,
they
think
they're
the
best
person
in
the
world
that,
of
course,
things
change.
Ten
years
later
they
hate
each
other
and
then
there's
a
divorce
or
two
divorces.
C
Is
the
kid
now
going
to
four
different
houses.
One
week
here,
one
week
there
one
week
here,
one
week
there
I
I
can
see
there
might
be
a
lot
of
unintended
consequences.
A
But
assemblywoman
krasner,
I
I
think
your
questions
are
getting
a
little
far
down
the
line.
I'm
happy
to
have
mr
rat
answer
that
one,
but
what
might
happen
in
a
later
proceeding
when
parents
don't
get
along?
I
mean
we
have
those
issues
now
with
with
current
family
law.
That's
why
we
have
judges
and
social
workers
and
child
advocates.
So
I
want
to
try
to
stick
to
the
substance
of
the
bill
rather
than
you
know
what
might
happen
down
the
road
but
I'll.
A
H
Thank
you,
terry
yeager,
kim
strat
for
the
record.
You
know
it
it's
real
easy
to
try
to
throw
out
those
hypotheticals
and
when
we
look
across
the
nation-
and
I
know
ms
sakamura
can
also
testify
to
this-
we
just
haven't
seen
the
problems
in
the
other
states
that
allow
multi-parent
adoptions.
They
don't
occur.
They
don't
get
as
complex
as
people
like
to
abstractly,
say
they're
going
to
be
I'll.
Tell
you.
H
Family
law
is
complex
already
in
and
of
itself
and
getting
to
what
is
the
best
interest
of
the
child
as
to
who
they
should
spend
time
with
takes
a
huge
chunk
of
litigation
and
time
that
we're
skipping
with
this
process,
because
they've
already
agreed
that
that's
what's
in
the
child's
best
interest
is
seeing
those
people.
A
G
Absolutely
thank
you
so
much
kathy
sakimara
for
the
record
it.
Yes,
we
really
haven't
seen
in
other
states
and
the
these
fears
about
lots
and
lots
of
people
becoming
parents
through
this
process.
G
There
certainly
are
three
parent
families,
of
course,
and
there's
four
parent
families
that
that
come
about
often
for
parent
families,
come
about
where
you
have
a
gay
male
couple
and
a
lesbian
couple
who
have
children
together,
they
you
know,
have
always
functioned
as
parents
together
and
they
don't
just
want
one
of
each
of
their
couple
to
be
parents
and
those
are
the
most
common
for
parent
families
that
we
see
and
they
have
usually
have
a
long
history
of
parenting
together.
G
Certainly
some
of
them
break
up
and
courts
do
have
to
deal
with
that.
The
the
way
that
it
works
is
that
you
don't
courts
don't
have
to
if
the
parents
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
cooperate
after
the
breakup
give
all
parents
equal
legal
decision-making
and
they
don't
have
to
give
all
parents
equal
custody
time
and
courts.
G
So
I
hope,
that's
helpful,
but
just
that
you
know
many
there's
actually
been
now
many
many
years
of
these
laws
in
a
number
of
states,
including
california,
of
course,
which
has
a
very
large
population
and
has
had
these
laws
for
about.
G
I
think
it's
nine
years
now,
and
so
we
have
seen
a
number
of
families
in
these
situations,
number
of
families,
who've
become
parents
and
then
later
separated,
and
it
hasn't
really
played
out
in
the
ways
that
there
were
sort
of
initial
fears
of
the
complexity
and
then
the
positive
side
is
that
for
child
support
purposes,
there's
more
people
who
are
available
to
support
that
child
to
avoid
going
on
public
assistance
in
a
situation
where
one
parent
becomes
incapacitated
or
incarcerated,
or
otherwise
unable
to
care
for
the
child.
A
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
assemblyman
christopher.
If
you
have
additional
questions
along
those
lines,
I
would
just
encourage
you
to
reach
out
after
the
hearing,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
enough
time
to
get
to
other
questions
and
our
work
sessions.
So
do
we
have
other
questions
from
members?
If
you
could
show
me
by
raising
your
hand
in
front
of
your
monitor,
that
would
be
helpful.
A
Okay,
I
think
we
don't
have
any
other
questions
at
this
time
so
to
our
presenters.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
presenting
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
do
some
concluding
remarks
once
we
get
through
the
testimony
on
the
bill,
so
just
sit
tight
for
the
time
being
and
at
this
time
I'll
go
to
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
115.
A
L
L
C
C
L
L
K
Good
morning,
mr
chair,
my
name
is
holly
wellborn
h-o-l-l
w-e-l-b-o-r-n
policy,
director
for
the
aclu
of
nevada.
K
I
will
be
quick
because
I
don't
want
to
cry,
and
I
pledge
that
I
will
not
cry
on
the
record
this
session,
but
you
know
we
support
this
legislation
because
we
have
been
at
the
forefront
of
the
battle
to
defend
the
rights
of
lgbtq
parents.
You
know
throughout
this
country
for
decades.
I'm
incredibly
pleased
that
my
dear
friend,
councilmember
rhys
is
presenting
this
bill
today.
I
knew
emily
incredibly
well.
K
K
They
their
family
is
a
beautiful
example
of
the
support
and
compassion
that
we
foster
when
we
dismantle
discriminatory
laws
and
embrace
inclusion.
So,
yes,
live
life.
Love
lives,
impact
others.
We
can
certainly
impact
others
with
this
legislation
and
for
these
reasons
we
support
this
bill.
Thank
you.
L
L
C
S-C-H-E-I-B-L-E,
I
know
I
think
everybody
on
this
call.
As
I'm
a
member
of
the
nevada
state
senate,
I
represent
district
9
in
the
southwest
part
of
las
vegas.
I
just
wanted
to
call
in
and
voice
my
support
for
this
bill.
I
think
it's
really
important
that
we
start
to
recognize
that
there
are
different
forms
of
families.
Besides
just
two
parents
and
who
appear
on
a
birth
certificate.
It's
important
that
everybody
have
access
to
that
kind
of
legal
recognition,
and
I'm
very
proud
to
be
a
co-sponsor
of
this
bill,
encourage
you
all
to
support
it.
A
A
L
A
L
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
will
close
neutral
testimony
and
now
would
be
the
time
for
any
closing
remarks.
So
assemblywoman
vice
chair
wynn,
I'll
hand
it
over
to
you
first,
and
I
think
we
still
have
a
few
others
who
helped
present.
So
if
they
would
like
to
make
comments
after
you,
that
would
be
appropriate
too.
D
Thank
you,
terry
yeager,
assemblywoman,
rochelle
nguyen
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
giving
me
the
opportunity,
and
I
really
want
to
thank
city,
councilman
devin
reese,
for
sharing
his
personal
story.
D
It
had
a
significant
impact
when
I
heard
it,
it
motivated
me
to
you
know,
move
forward
with
assembly
bill
115
and
I'm
so
glad
that
he
was
willing
to
and
able
to
share
that.
I
think
it
highlights
what
this
bill
would
hope
to
accomplish
if
passed.
So
I
would
strongly
encourage
your
support
in
supporting
assembly
bill
115,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over
to.
I
think,
mr
roth.
First,
if
that's
okay,.
H
Thank
you,
cherry
yeager,
kim
serap
for
the
record.
Yes,
I
I
know
that
we
may
not
have
gotten
all
the
questions
out
today,
based
on
us
studying
and
replacing
the
language,
as
I
stated
earlier
in
my
testimony,
I'm
here
for
any
questions
and
adjustments
in
language
if
needed,
and
I
just
encourage
you
to
pass
this
bill.
Thank
you.
D
You
know
what,
if
we
can
go
to
kathy's
sacramento.
I
know
that
it
is.
I
appreciate
that
she's
a
working
mom,
because
I
think
I
heard
a
toddler
in
the
background
and
I'm
sure
all
the
legislative
mamas
on
here
can
also
appreciate
the
the
circumstances
we're
working
in.
So,
if
you'd
like
to
say
something,
I
turn
it
over.
G
Thank
you
so
much.
Yes,
my
young
children
are
running
in
the
hallway
at
the
moment.
Thank
you
so
much
kathy
sakimura
for
the
record.
We
stand,
of
course,
in
strong
support
of
this
bill.
G
I
think
recognizing
that
families
come
in
so
many
different
forms
and
that
what
is
most
important
for
children
is
that
the
actual
realities
of
their
family
lives
be
recognized
and
supported
by
the
state
and
that
we
don't
unnecessarily
separate
from
children
from
their
parents
when
circumstances
change
and
ensure
that
children
have
that
ability
to
maintain
the
relationship
with
all
of
their
parents
when
something
happens
or
a
crisis
arises.
So
we
thank
you
so
much
and
we
urge
your
support.
D
F
Thank
you,
chair,
yeager
and
co-chair
nguyen,
and
the
committee
and
my
co-presenters.
I
won't
take
up
too
much
time
and
just
echo
everything
that
everyone
said
but
really
appreciate,
folks,
hearing
about
the
diversity
of
families
and
recognizing
that
this
isn't
just
an
lgbt
issue.
F
It's
a
family
issue,
it's
a
children's
issue
and
that
we
hope
that
nevada
will
continue
to
leave
the
charge
being
a
state
that
is
welcoming
and
inclusive,
no
matter
what
a
family
looks
like
so
so,
instead
of
quality,
we
are
in
full
support
and
thank
everyone
for
their
their
time,
and
thank
you
vice
chair
nguyen,
for
taking
on
this
villain,
kathy
and
kim.
It's
been
a
pleasure
working
on
this
for
nevadans.
A
A
Is
anybody
ready
for
a
work
session?
I
see,
excitement
out
there.
So
let's
go
to
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
our
work
session
I'll
now
open
up
our
work
session
for
members
of
the
public
and
committee
members,
the
supporting
documentation
for
the
work
session
is
uploaded
on
alice
members.
I
think
you
would
have
gotten
it
by
email
as
well.
Just
for
clarification.
We
originally
had
assembly
bill
59
on
the
work
session.
We
did
end
up
revising
the
agenda,
so
we
are
not
going
to
consider
assembly
bill
59,
which
is
the
t21
tobacco
bill.
A
M
Our
first
bill
on
work
session
today
is
assembly
bill
17
sponsored
by
the
assembly
committee
on
judiciary,
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
parole
and
probation
and
heard
in
committee
on
february
10th.
This
bill
eliminates
the
distinction
between
an
honorable
discharge
and
a
dishonorable
discharge
from
parole
or
probation.
M
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
committee
members.
You'll
recall
this
is
the
first
bill
we
heard
in
committee
which,
to
be
honest,
seems
like
a
year
ago
at
this
point,
but
before
we
take
a
motion,
are
there
any
questions
about
assembly
bill
17
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document
with
the
amendment
and
just
as
a
reminder
I'll
give
you
a
chance
to
make
any
comments
you
might
have
before
we
vote,
but
now
would
be
the
time
for
questions
if
anyone
is
confused
about
what
is
in
the
work
session
document.
A
A
Great
thank
you
and
who
would
like
to
provide
a
second
on
that
I
saw
assemblywoman
gonzalez
first,
so
please
go
ahead.
I
second
okay.
We
have
a
motion
from
vice
chairwin,
a
second
from
assemblywoman
gonzalez.
Are
there
any
comments
on
the
motion
before
we
vote.
A
C
I
C
H
A
Yes,
so
I
think
the
final
tally
there
was
nine
in
support
five
opposed
and
we
have
one
absent
excuse.
So
that
motion
does
pass
and
I'll
assign
the
floor
statement
on
assembly
bill
17
to
gonzalez
okay.
So
let's
go
next
to
assembly
bill
23,
miss
thornton.
Take
it
away!
Please.
M
This
bill
revises
the
procedure
for
the
commitment
of
certain
criminal
defendants
who
are
found
to
be
incompetent
by
the
court.
There
is
one
proposed
amendment
to
this
measure.
This
amendment
was
proposed
by
dr
neighbors
from
dbh
kendra
burchie
from
washoe
public
defender's
office
and
john
pirro
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
M
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton,
and
before
I
open
it
up
for
questions
I'll
committee,
you
may
remember
there
was
the
real
testimony
on
this
was
how
many
days
the
division
would
have
to
do
this
report
and
it
looks
like
thankfully,
they
reached
an
agreement.
So
what
you
see
in
the
amendment
is
40
calendar
days,
and
that
is
instead
of
reasonable
time
and
then
there's
a
possibility
for
an
extension
as
well.
C
Just
a
quick
comment,
mr
chair,
I
did
get
my
second
shot,
so
I
will
never
be
on
mute
again.
I
wanted
you
to
know
that,
but
the
I
just
wanted
to
thank
dr
neighbors
and
the
pd
for
getting
together
and
making
sure
we've
got
a
bill
that
absolutely
nobody's
happy
with.
It
is
the
perfect
bill.
Thank
you.
We
will
be
voting
yes,.
A
A
And
we
had
a
close
one
there
for
a
second
but
I'll
go
to
assemblyman
wheeler.
A
C
I
C
C
C
A
Yes,
it
is
unanimous
of
all
members
present,
so
the
motion
does
carry.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod,
we'll
go
next
to
assembly
bill
24,
miss
thornton.
M
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton.
Before
we
take
a
motion,
any
questions
about
assembly
bill
24
as
detailed
on
the
work
session
document,
didn't
think
there'd
be
questions
on
that
one,
but
would
just
have
to
check
anyway.
So
at
this
time,
I'll
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
do
pass.
Who
would
like
to
make
that
motion.
A
A
Motion,
thank
you.
I
almost
feel
like.
We
need
a
need
to
have
buzzers
at
your
desk,
like
it's
a
game
show
who
can
press
the
button
faster
because
you
kind
of
have
an
advantage.
If
I'm
looking
at
you
when
you
raise
your
hand
but
the
jeopardy,
would
it
would
be
fun?
That's
for
sure.
So,
okay,
we
have
a
motion
on
the
floor
to
do
past
assembly
bill
24.
Any
comments
on
the
motion.
A
C
C
C
M
You,
mr
chair
assembly,
bill
27,
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
welfare
and
supportive
services.
It
was
heard
in
committee
on
february
12th.
This
bill
revises
provisions
of
the
uniform
interstate
family
support
act
that
governs
the
issuance
of
certain
orders
redirecting
child
support,
and
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
measure.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
C
A
A
D
C
I
C
C
C
M
M
M
It
revises
provisions
to
include
that
the
applicant
must
be
able
to
provide
counseling
for
partners
of
victims
and
their
family
members
and
domestic
violence
prevention
programs
for
members
of
the
community.
And
lastly,
it
revises
the
procedure
for
awarding
grants
in
nrs
217.450
to
provide
that
in
counties
under
a
hundred
thousand,
no
more
than
one
applicant
will
be
funded.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
A
I
D
C
C
C
A
Yes,
so
all
members
president
did
vote
yes,
the
motion
carries.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
for
assembly
bill
30
to
assembly,
woman,
hardy
and
moving
right
along.
I
think
we're
more
than
halfway
done.
We'll
take
up
assembly
bill
37.,
miss
thornton.
Could
you
tell
us
about
assembly
bill
37?
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
M
Assembly
bill
37
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
welfare
and
supportive
services
and
heard
in
committee
on
february
12th.
This
bill
revises
provisions
regarding
the
payment
of
child
support.
The
bill
requires
the
reporting
and
withholding
of
lump
sum
payments
by
income
payers
under
certain
circumstances.
M
There
is
one
amendment
to
the
bill
sponsored
by
steve
fisher,
administrator,
division
of
welfare
and
supportive
services.
The
amendment
proposes
to
strike
the
language
in
subsections,
14
and
15
of
section
5
of
the
bill.
This
would
remove
the
reference
to
workers,
compensation,
reimbursements
and
insurance
settlements
included
in
the
definition
of
lump
sum
payment.
These
items
are
duplicative
as
they've
been
addressed
in
previous
legislation.
A
Thank
you,
miss
thornton
committee.
You
might
remember
when
we
discussed
this
bill.
We
didn't
have
the
written
amendment
in
front
of
us,
but
the
sponsor
had
indicated
they
wish
to
strike
subsections,
14
and
15,
because
the
income
pair
wouldn't
have
access
to
those
money.
So
what
you
see
in
the
work
session
document
is
just
a
formalizing
of
that
amendment
by
the
sponsor
and,
of
course,
because
they're
presenting
the
amendment,
it
is
a
friendly
amendment.
A
C
K
A
Okay,
thank
you.
You
said
it
so
quickly.
Your
box
didn't
light
up
on
my
screen,
so
we
have
a
second.
So
we
have
a
first.
We
have
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
from
vice
chairwin,
a
second
from
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
any
comments
before
we
vote
assemblyman
o'neill.
L
C
Out
of
committee,
but
I'd
like
to
reserve
to
the
right
to
change
my
vote
on
the
floor.
I
appreciate
the
amendments
that
were
made.
I
just
liked
a
little
more
time
to
review
the
bill
and,
as
I
said,
I'm
just
asking
for
that
privilege
please
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neill
I
and
I
will
remind
members
this
is
the
first
time
we've
had
a
work
session,
but
you
of
course,
as
an
elected,
always
have
the
right
to
change
your
vote
between
committee
and
the
floor.
I
would
just
ask
as
a
courtesy,
if
you
could,
let
me
know
if
you're
going
to
do
that,
so
that
can
help
me
figure
out
whether
we
have
the
votes
to
move
things
out
or
not.
But
please
know
that
you
do
always
have
that
right,
but
appreciate
hearing
the
heads
up
that
there
might
be
some
concerns
there.
B
C
I
C
A
Yes,
so
looks
like
the
vote
was
13
yeses,
one,
no
one
absent
excuse.
The
motion
does
carry
and
I'm
going
to
assign
the
floor
statement
on
assembly
bill
37
to
assemblyman
oren
liquor
and
we've
got
a
few
more
to
go.
Committee
hang
in
there,
so
we're
going
to
take
assembly
bill
107
next,
ms
thornton,
please.
M
Thank
you,
chairman
assembly
bill,
107
sponsored
by
assemblyman,
yeager
and
herding
committee
on
february
19th.
This
bill
revises
the
procedure
for
determining
whether
a
person
may
prosecute
or
defend
a
civil
action
without
paying
costs.
There
is
an
amendment
proposed
to
this
by
chair
yeager,
and
the
amendment
does
the
following.
M
It
deletes
language
in
section,
1,
sub,
section
2a
and
replaces
it
with
language
that
allows
the
person
to
submit
a
statement
or
otherwise
indicate
that
they
are
a
client
of
a
program
for
legal
aid,
section
1,
subsection
2c
to
clarify
that
income
is
referred
to
as
net
income,
delete,
section,
1,
subsection
2d,
which
refers
to
liquid
assets
or
other
assets
and,
lastly,
revises
the
effective
date
to
30
days
after
passage
and
approval.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
J
I
I
and
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
see
this
yesterday
to
ask
when
we
got
the
work
session
document
so
so
I
believe,
as
I
recall,
this
is
the
bill
where
we
discussed
that
there
that
there
might
have
been
some
concern
by
practitioners
because
of
a
lack
of
uniformity
by
the
judiciary
in
making
the
determination
about
who
is
considered
indigent
an
indigent
litigant,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
with
the
conceptual
amendment
we're
not
kind
of
putting
that
back
in
play
because
of
in
the
new
language.
J
Well,
I
guess
that
isn't
new
language,
you
know
what
I
don't
think,
that's
new
language
that
I'm
looking
at,
so
I
I
mean
if
you
would,
if
you
would
address
that,
but
actually
now
looking
at
it,
I
think
I'm.
I
was
looking
at
the
wrong
language
and
we're
not
dealing
with
new
language
about
the
court,
making
the
determination.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
cohen,
and
I
think
you're
right.
The
effort
here
was
to
try
to
have
a
more
standardized
process
throughout
the
state,
and
I
think
this
amendment
accomplishes
that
I
I
will
let
members
know
I've
been
in
some
further
discussions
with
members
of
the
judiciary.
A
There
could
potentially
be
further
amendments
to
the
bill
down
the
line.
I
don't
know
that
we're
100
there,
but
I
want
to
get
this
moving,
at
least
through
the
the
process
and,
of
course,
if
it
is
further
amended
in
some
fashion,
we'll
have
a
chance
to
review
that
or
consent
to
it.
If
it
happens
over
in
the
senate
so
assembly,
one
cohen,
did
that
answer
your
question.
Hopefully,
yes,
thank
you,
chair,
okay,
great
thank
you.
Are
there
other
questions
on
assembly
bill
107
as
detailed
in
the
work
session
document?
A
A
Great,
thank
you.
So
we
have
a
motion
from
assemblyman
miller,
a
second
from
vice
chairwin.
Any
comments
on
the
motion
before
we
take
the
vote.
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
M
M
A
C
I
was
going
straight
for
the
do
pass.
A
A
D
C
A
C
C
A
A
M
M
The
bill
requires
a
short-term
lesser
to
accept
service
of
the
summons
and
complaint
in
any
other
required
documents
on
behalf
of
a
short-term
lessee
who
is
not
a
resident
of
the
united
states
and
who
purchased
liability
insurance
for
any
crash
resulting
from
the
operation
of
the
vehicle
within
this
state
during
the
lease,
and
there
are
no
amendments
to
this
measure.
Thank
you,
chair.
D
I
moved
to
do
pass
assembly
bill
140.
A
A
I
D
C
C
K
C
A
Yes,
so
the
motion
does
carry.
It
is
unanimous
of
those
present
and
I
want
to
congratulate
vice
chair
wynn,
although
this
is
not
her
first
session
in
the
legislature.
This
is
her
first
bill
of
her
own
to
pass
out
of
committee.
She
joined
us
a
little
bit
late
last
session
and
was
not
able
to
request
any
bills
of
her
own.
So
congratulations.
A
Vice
chair
winn,
I'm
going
to
give
you
the
floor
statement
on
the
bill
and,
if
he's
watching,
congratulations
to
mr
randall
as
well
on
having
his
first
bill
co-presented
out
of
the
assembly
judiciary,
committee,
so
committee,
I
think
that
that's
it
for
the
work
session
document.
Thank
you
for
helping
us
get
through
that,
just
as
a
way
of
announcement,
because
I
know
we
have
some
new
members
here,
you
might
be
wondering
what
happens
next
with
these
bills.
A
If
the
bills
were
do
pass
and
they
were
not
amended,
they
should
be
going
to
the
floor
very
soon
and
we'd
be
looking
to
vote
on
those
in
the
very
near
future.
For
the
bills
that
are
amended,
legal
is
going
to
need
to
draft
those
actual
formal
amendments.
A
They
can't
just
use
the
ones
we
submit,
so
they
have
to
draft
their
own
and
then
once
those
are
finished,
the
bill
will
be
sent
to
the
floor
amended
and
voted
on.
So
typically,
the
amended
bills
take
a
little
bit
longer
to
get
down
to
the
floor
and
hopefully
that's
helpful
in
terms
of
the
process.
So
I'll
close
the
work
session,
the
work
session
on
the
agenda
and
now
we'll
now
go
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
Just
by
way
of
reminder,
we
reserve
up
to
30
minutes
for
public
comment.
A
L
L
N
N
The
body
cam
video
concludes
with
a
view
right
up.
Tashi's
head,
as
he
laid
lifeless
on
the
ground.
Lapera
takes
ground
a
total
of
seven
times
punched
tashi
over
ten
times
and
placed
him
in
a
choke
for
a
minute
and
thirteen
seconds.
I
just
want
to
mention
the
other
day
when
marshall
county
presented
at
the
senate
judiciary,
sergeant
salfarino,
said
it's
only
a
matter
of
time
when
he
talked
about
this,
that's
chasing
dust
at
the
jail.
It's
only
a
matter
of
time
before
it
happens
again
and
that
physically
made
me
sick
he's
right.
N
A
L
A
A
Okay,
before
we
talk
about
next
week,
anything
else
from
our
very
hard-working
assembly,
judiciary,
committee
members
this
morning,
hey,
I
don't
see
anything
I
want
to.
Thank
you
all.
It
felt
like
it
was
kind
of
a
long
week,
even
though
we
didn't
have
a
monday
meeting
and
I'm
proud
that
we
were
able
to
get
some
bills
moved
out
to
the
assembly
floor.
A
As
I
mentioned
yesterday,
we're
not
going
to
have
a
meeting
on
monday,
so
you
get
the
morning
off
monday
and
then
so
far
we
have
three
agendas
out
for
next
week.
Tuesday,
wednesday
thursday
are
all
eight
o'clock
starts
and
we
have
bills
scheduled
for
each
of
those
days.
We're
still
waiting
to
see
what's
going
to
happen
on
friday
and
of
course,
those
agendas
for
next
week
can
always
change
as
we
continue
to
work
on
those.
So
that's
the
lay
of
the
land.