►
From YouTube: 2/4/2021 - Senate 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
Thank
you
so
much
to
our
staff
at
bps
and
welcome
everybody
to
the
second
meeting
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee.
We
have
two
bills
to
hear
today.
I
understand
that
our
presenters
are
already
here
and
they
are
ready
to
get
started.
So
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
eight.
We
will
do
eight
first
and
then
seven
due
to
the
presenter's
time
constraints
and
if
I
could
have
judges,
marquee
and
shrine
art,
I'm
not
sure,
if
you're,
both
presenting
or
how
you'd
like
to
begin.
B
Good
afternoon,
chair,
schaible,
judge
markey,
and
I
agree
that
I
would
present
the
bill
and
then
we're
both
available
for
questions.
Although
I
do
have
the
time
constraint,
I
have
a
trial
at
1
30,
so
I
really
appreciate
the
committee's
ability
to
hear
us
first.
Thank
you
so
to
schreibel
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
judge
tamatha
schreinert
from
the
second
judicial
district
court.
I
serve
as
a
judge
in
department
14
in
the
family
division.
B
B
The
guardianship
statutes
were
rewritten
to
separate
the
adult
and
the
minor
guardianships
into
their
own
sections.
When
that
occurred,
the
provisions
for
transferring
and
registering
a
guardianship
was
left
out
of
the
minor
guardianship
section.
So
sb8
remedies
this
by
mirroring
the
provisions
from
the
adult
guardianship
statutes
and
placing
them
into
the
minor
guardianship
statute.
B
Section
two
is
the
ability
to
transfer
a
nevada
guardianship
out
of
state.
This
does
help
with
folks
who
need
to
move
away
who
have
guardianship.
Sometimes
it's
difficult
for
them
to
get
a
guardianship
in
the
new
state,
while
there's
still
an
open
case
here
in
nevada.
So
with
the
transfer
provision
that
will
help
those
guardians
section,
3
allows
the
transfer
of
an
out-of-state
guardianship
into
nevada.
B
An
example
is
this:
if
say,
some
grandparents
have
had
guardianship
in
california
for
quite
some
time.
They
have
a
new
job
here
in
reno.
This
allows
them
to
transfer
their
case
here
to
nevada
with
their
court's
permission,
and
then
we
can
set
up
a
case
here
with,
of
course
oversight,
and
we
do
require
oversight
and
a
hearing
before
granting
a
nevada,
guardianship,
sections
four
and
five
allow
the
registration
of
an
out
of
state
guardianship
in
nevada
again
with
court
oversight.
B
This
is
something
that
you
can
do
if
you
have
a
custody
order
from
another
state.
You're
allowed
to
register
it
here,
and
this
allows
that
to
be
done
in
guardianships.
This
would
be
in
a
case
where
perhaps
it
doesn't
need
to
transfer,
but
the
state
needs
to
know.
For
example,
we
have
a
lot
of
cities
that
are
bisected
by
the
border
between
nevada
and
california
or
other
states.
B
B
B
So
now
the
guardianship
statutes
will
conform
to
that
and
then
finally,
section
seven
is
the
part
that
allows
us
to
appoint
a
guardian
in
a
case
where
nevada
isn't
quite
the
home
state.
An
example
of
this
is:
if
someone
moves
here
over
spring
break
not
spring
break,
probably
summer
break
more
likely
and
they
need
to
get
the
child
enrolled
into
school.
B
B
A
B
You
know,
I'm
sorry
to
say
I
did
not
and
did
you
judge
marquis.
A
Okay,
if
I
were
to
send
it
to
you
would
be,
would
you
be
willing
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
get
back
to
us
on
whether
there
are
any
conflicts
between
this
law
and
the
ucc
jea?
We
would
have
no
issue
with
that
at
all.
Okay,
I
figured
as
much
and
then
I
just
have
one
other
question
that
pertains
to
the
home
state
definition.
A
On
page
four,
I
noticed
on
lines
18
and
19
that
we
have
moved
from
was
physically
present
to
live
with
a
parent
or
a
person
acting
as
a
parent.
I've
not
seen
acting
as
a
parent
language
used
in
our
statute.
Before
is
this
the
first
time
we're
using
it,
or
does
that
have
a
known
legal
connotation.
B
C
And
this
con,
I
would
agree
first
with
my
counterpart
part
to
the
north,
but
in
this
context
they
discuss
acting
as
a
parent.
They
are
alluding
to
a
guardian
who
has
had
a
guardianship,
perhaps
in
another
state.
She
she
talked
about
california
and
has
moved
with
that
sports
permission
to
nevada,
but
has
not
yet
been
here
for
the
six-month
requirement
here.
We're
talking
about
two
needs
the
need
to
go
to
school
and
be
able
to
sign
up
for
school.
C
D
C
Issue
is
being
able
to
put
that
child
on
the
guardian's
health
insurance.
Certainly,
we
have
the
ability
to
grant
a
temporary,
the
temporary
has
limited
uses.
It
can
be
used
for
emergencies,
medical
emergencies,
but
generally
we
see
health
insurance
will
refuse
to
honor
a
temporary
and
need
that
general
guardianship.
I
also
would
note
that
there
is
an
expert
among
us.
Senator
harris
is
here
and
I
don't
need
to
oversimplify
or
speak
answer
some
of
these
questions
in
a
way
that
I
I'm
sure
she
has
great
insights.
A
Thank
you
and
I
will
call
on
senator
harris
next.
I
guess
the
thing
I
wanted
to
clarify
was
whether
or
not
the
intention
or
the
result
of
that
language
would
be
that
somebody
who
might
be
in
a
less
formal
arrangement
if
someone
is
taking
care
of
a
family
members
or
neighbors
or
friends,
children
or
child
for
an
extended
period
of
time,
but
never
enter
into
a
formal
guardianship
arrangement.
Would
they
be
covered
under
this
statute?
A
C
It
would
certainly
apply
to
them
in
those
circumstances
their
chair.
I
would
tell
you
that
judge
schreiner
and
I
have
access
to
some
investigative
tools
through
our
investigators,
and
so
that
scenario
would
cause
me
pause,
and
I
would
certainly
ask
for
more
information,
because
that
would
be
unique
that
a
non-parent
without
a
court
order
would
have
in
their
care
in
custody
for
a
period
of
months
a
child
without
any
oversight
or
direction
from
the
poor.
C
So
I
want
to
make
sure
kids
are
in
school,
but
I
also
need
to
ensure
that
they're
safe,
so
there
there
would
be
some
additional
follow-up.
But
yes,
it
would
include
that
type
of
scenario.
A
Right
that
answers
my
question
and
I
see
that
senator
harris
has
a
question
or
maybe
some
information
to
share
with
us,
so
senator
harris.
E
Thank
you,
chair
scheible.
I
actually
had
a
similar
question
about
that
definition
of
home
state
and
from
the
discussion
that
we
just
had.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
I
got
my
answer
correctly.
E
Are
we
switching
was
physically
present
to
live
with
a
parent
or
a
person
acting
as
a
parent
in
order
to
conform
with
the
uniform
law?
Is
that
really
the
main
purpose
of
changing
that
language?
Or
is
there
another
motivation
there.
C
I
don't
have
a
great
answer,
but
I
would
I
I'm
happy
to
follow
up
and
get
you
all
an
answer.
Our
intention
would
be
to
conform
with
the
ucc
jea
so
because
it
applies
to
all
of
the
states
so
that
it
is
much
more
clear.
Sometimes
a
child
can
be
physically
present
in
a
state
without
a
person
acting
as
their
parent.
So
we
would
want.
I
think,
that's
the
distinction
that
the
uccjea
makes
in
this
context.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
it
and
judges
shriner
and
marky
it's
great
to
see
both
of
you
again.
You
know
I
I
I
wanna
just
to
follow
up
a
little
bit.
First
judge
schreiner.
You
made
the
comment
that
we're
mirroring
the
adult,
guardianships
and,
of
course,
in
with
minor
guardianships,
we're
also
dealing
with
a
fundamental
parental
right
that
we
don't
typically
deal
with
in
the
adult
guardianship
arena,
and
it's
on
that
basis.
F
I
wonder
if
you
could
expand
a
little
bit
on
the
shifting
of
the
burden
of
proof
in
section
two
sub
b,
where
the
objector
is
required
to
make
the
offer
proof
that
it's
not
in
the
best
interest
of
the
minor
to
be
transferred.
F
I
understand
from
a
practical
standpoint,
in
the
vast
majority
of
these
cases,
we're
going
to
have
a
parent
who
couldn't
take
care
of
the
child
for
whatever
reason
whether
they
were
removed
or
not,
or
it
was
voluntary,
and
so
we've
got
someone
acting
in
a
parent
of
capacity
who's
been
given
that
responsibility.
B
Thank
you,
senator
pickard.
It's
also
nice
to
see
you
as
well
in
a
different
format.
Here.
Certainly-
and
one
thing
I
want
to
make
clear
and
I'm
sure
judge
marquis
would,
if
I
did
not,
then
in
in
terms
of
minor
guardianships.
Of
course
they
are
very
different
than
adult
guardianships
judge
marquis
handles
both
and
I
only
handle
the
minor
guardianship,
so
she
might
be
able
to
expand
on
that
a
little
bit
more
and
but
in
terms
of
the
burden.
B
Certainly
when
you're
dealing
with
the
transfer
of
guardianship,
where
we
have
the
proof
of
a
formal
guardianship
in
another
state
where
there
have
been
findings
made
already,
I
would
say
to
be
a
slightly
colloquial.
This
is
not
an
opportunity
per
se
for
a
parent
to
have
another
bite
at
the
apple
and
we're
going
to
have
a
whole
new
hearing
again
and
put
the
child
through
that.
But,
of
course
we
will
have
a
hearing
and
hear
any
objection
and
see
if
they
can
meet
that
standard,
because
circumstances
have
changed
and
judge
markey.
C
I
I
would
note
that,
procedurally,
let's
take
our
same
example
from
california.
If
a
grandparent
had
a
guardianship
in
california,
that
parent
has
already
had
notice
and
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
a
right
to
appeal.
All
of
those
things
have
have
been
offered
and
then
in
california
the
grandparent
would
request
permission
to
relocate
again.
All
of
the
family
members
would
have
been
noticed,
including
the
natural
parent.
C
There
would
have
been
a
hearing,
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
and
a
right
to
appeal
that
order,
which
is
considered
a
final
order,
and
then
the
person
would
move
to
nevada
and
attempt
to
establish
that
nevada
guardianship.
So
we
are
taking
full
faith
and
credit
that
the
guardianship
order
in
california
is
valid
and
should
be
enforced.
We
already
have
the
the
permission
of
the
court.
C
Who's
been
overseeing
that
guardianship
to
come
here,
so
it
would
be
again
give
that
natural
parent,
absolutely
notice
of
the
citation
and
petition
and
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
at
the
hearing.
Should
there
be
any
real
question
at
that
time
and
I
understand
that
it,
it
could
appear
that
it
shifts
the
burden,
but
it
actually
gives
them
just
another
chance
to
be
heard,
and
now
this
would
be
the
third
time
that
that
parent
has
been
heard.
C
At
least
we
know
relative
to
that
guardianship
to
discuss
the
issues,
perhaps
establish
a
better
visitation
schedule
if
geography
has
changed
and
address
some
other
issues.
So
I
understand
your
concern,
and
certainly
parents
do
have
that
fundamental
right,
but
I
would
suggest
that
they
have
had
the
opportunity
at
two
other
occasions
to
contest
the
guardianship.
There's
always
also
an
awkward
ongoing
opportunity
at
any
time
for
a
natural
parent
or
any
other
family
member
to
petition
to
terminate
the
guardianship
and
again
should.
C
C
We
we
have
a
lot
of
things
at
our
disposal
to
make
sure
that
if
there's
an
issue,
we
think
that
or
any
concern
at
that
point
in
time,
senator
pickard
that
we
would
have
an
opportunity
to
peruse
that
so
we're
not
starting
from
scratch.
With
the
guardianship
we're
talking
about
when
we
transfer
guardianship
and
a
judge
has
already
made
a
series
of
decisions
and
that
natural
parent
has
had
a
notice
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
about
those
decisions.
F
That
that's
where
I
thought
that
you
were
going
to
go
and
and
of
course,
when
we're
looking
at
these
things,
we're
trying
to
look
at
the
margins
and
and
see
outside
what
the
typical
case
would
look
like.
F
You
know
what
are
the
potential
unintended
consequences
if
we
don't
think
them
through,
so
my
thought
was
what
happens
when
we
get
a
case,
and
I
had
one
similar
to
this
a
couple
years
ago,
where
someone
had
obtained
a
guardianship
in
another
state
without
proper
notice,
and
so
now
we
had
a
parent
trying
to
obtain
custody
of
the
child
and
then
found
out
that
a
month
before
a
guardianship
had
been
awarded,
and
so
then
we
got
into
the
jurisdictional
question
and
we
had
a
ucc
jea
conference
which
I
assume
would
occur
if
there
were
any
kind
of
disputes
of
that
regard.
F
My
only
other
question
really
is
how
many
cases
are
we
talking
about.
You
know
I
I
I
I
don't
remember
seeing
that
many
of
the
transfers
that
were
ever
objected
to,
but
are
we
talking
about
something
that's
going
to
burden
the
the
district
courts
as
we
deal
with
this,
or
is
this?
Can
you
tell
me
how
many
cases
we're
dealing
with
and
how
this
affects
the
the
current
calendars.
B
Thank
you,
senator
pickard.
I
will
address
that.
First
for
washoe
county,
I
would
say
we're
really
speaking
of
a
handful.
Maybe
a
quarter.
We
don't
have
the
population
up
here,
but
I
would
actually
phrase
it
differently
by
by
putting
this
mechanism
in
place,
it
actually
will
alleviate
some
of
the
burden,
because
at
this
point
these
folks
moving
in
here
have
to
start
again
and
apply
for
a
whole
new
guardianship.
B
C
C
I
don't
have
the
exact
numbers
senator,
but
I
will
tell
you
that,
probably
from
your
own
experience,
you
know
that
we
have
a
lot
of
families
moving
in
and
out
of
our
jurisdiction
ordinarily.
C
But
during
this
past
nine
months
I
have
seen
certainly
an
uptick
and
in
these
circumstances
it's
especially
different
and-
and
let
me
tell
you
why
many
times
we
have
perhaps
parents
that
pass
away
unexpectedly
and
grandparents
who
may
be
living
in
sun
city
here
in
a
retirement
community,
suddenly
have
the
care
and
custody
of
their
grandchildren
and
when
they
chose
clark
county
as
their
place
of
residence
and
when
they
chose
their
home.
C
They
didn't
expect
this
tragedy,
and
so
many
times
we
see
them
moving
back
to
be
closer
to
family
so
that
they
have
cousins
and
brothers
and
sisters
and
other
extended
family
to
help
them
raise
that
child
in
an
environment
that
maybe
they
lived
in
prior
to
their
retirement.
C
That's
quite
common,
and
certainly
they
have
many
reasons
that
they
want
to
do
that.
I
know
you
see
that
in
your
practice
in
custody
matters,
maybe
a
job
or
other
circumstances,
but
especially
with
grandparents.
C
We
see
a
relocation
shortly
after
you
know,
in
the
months
or
a
year
after,
a
guardianship
has
been
granted
and
it's
a
help
to
them,
because
this
procedure
really
spells
out
exactly
what
they
need
to
do
and
how
to
handle
it.
F
A
Absolutely-
and
I
understand
that
senator
settlemyre
also
has
a
question:
go
ahead,
something
thank.
G
You
thank
you,
chair
scribal.
I
was
curious
if
this
bill
will
help
out
in
regards
to
a
problem
that
I've
seen
in
my
community
with
situations
of
guardianships
where,
sadly,
in
my
community,
we
have
a
fair
amount
of
grandparents
that
are
raising
their
grandchildren
because,
sadly,
their
children.
D
A
I'm
gonna
jump
in
real
fast
with
the
housekeeping
matter
for
the
presenters
who
are
answering
questions.
If
you
could
just
identify
yourselves
for
the
record
before
you
start
speaking,
so
our
secretaries
can
get
the
notes.
A
B
Thank
you,
and
this
is
judge
tamatha
schreinert.
I
do
have
to
go
in
a
few
minutes,
so
I
just
thought
I'd
jump
in
before
judge
marquis
and
answer
that
that
is
a
situation
that
we
are
seeing
quite
often,
and
it
is
very
tragic
for
all
involved,
certainly
to
answer
part
of
your
question
in
a
case
like
that,
where
there's
been
a
guardianship
here
in
nevada
and
now
there's
some
movement
to
a
different
state
and
we
would
absolutely
have
a
conference
with
the
court
in
that
other
state.
B
We
call
it
a
ucc
jea
conference
and
to
determine
the
best
jurisdiction
and
if
the
child's
been
living
here,
then
we
would
be
able
to
keep
that
jurisdiction
to
make
the
decisions
in
the
best
interest.
So
that
is
part
of
the
reason
for
the
bill
to
make
sure
we're
conforming.
The
statute
with
the
uccja.
G
A
A
Thank
you
for
joining
us
judge,
schreiner
and
good
luck
in
your
trial,
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
testimony
in
support
of
sb8.
G
G
H
But
it's
going
to
address
a
related
subject
of
supported
decision
making,
which
is
nrs
162c,
like
charles
sub
200.
If
we
do
nothing
else
to
it,
so
one
of
one
of
the
issues
that's
come
up
specifically
during
covid
is
when
this
was
conceived
in
the
19
session,
supported
decision
making
as
an
alternative
to
guardianship
for
adults
in
particular,
it
required
in-person
signatures
with
witnesses.
H
Unfortunately,
that
is
not
with
the
covet
restrictions,
really
a
feasible
option
at
this
point,
so
it
would
kind
of,
as
the
courts
have
mostly
done,
would
permit
essentially
electronic
signatures
and
kind
of
defer
to
the
emergency
statutes
in
situations
like
this,
and
we
could
put
a
time
limit
on
it.
If
we
wanted
to
that's
something,
we
could
work
out
in
negotiating
it,
but,
like
I
said,
it's
kind
of
put
a
damper
on
folks
being
able
to
implement
that
less
restrictive
option
to
guardianship
for
adults
in
particular,
is
my
understanding
and
with
that.
A
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
schaible
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary
committee,
I'm
going
to
give
a
brief
introduction
and
then
turn
it
over
to
john
mccormick
to
go
through
the
bill.
Further,
I'm
judge
melissa
saragosa.
I
am
the
chief
judge
of
the
las
vegas
justice
court.
I
It's
not
the
volume
that
presents
a
problem
for
our
court.
It's
really
the
jurisdiction,
so
the
justice
courts
have
clearly
subject
matter
jurisdiction
to
hear
various
types
of
protection
order
cases
as
outlined
in
nrs
4.370,
which
is
part
or
section
2
of
the
bill.
However,
there's
no
clear
jurisdiction
over
the
person
of
the
juvenile
adverse
party.
I
Should
the
justice
court
keep
these
cases.
One
of
the
problems
is
that
we
have
no
authority
to
even
enforce
our
own
order.
The
enforcement
can
take
place
in
two
methods:
one
a
separate
criminal
action
which,
as
for
an
adult,
would
be
either
a
misdemeanor
or
gross
misdemeanor
for
a
juvenile
that
would
be
the
initiation
of
a
juvenile
delinquency
matter,
neither
of
which
would
happen
for
a
juvenile
in
our
court
or
the
justice
courts.
I
The
other
method
is
contempt
of
court
and
there
is
no
statutory
authority
that
makes
it
clear
that
a
justice
court
can
hold
a
contempt
hearing
and
potentially
hold
a
juvenile
in
contempt
and
subject
to
jail
time
for
a
juvenile
that
really
kind
of
gives
you
the
overview
of
what
we're
looking
at
in
this
particular
bill.
I
would
be
happy
to
provide
the
written
order
that
we
prepared
in
that
case
is.
J
Just
letting
everyone
know
that
ben
graham
is
here
in
with
me,
albeit
off
judge
zaragoza,
did
a
a
bang-up
job
indicating
what
the
primary
purpose
of
this
bill
is,
and
that
is
to
give
statutory
guidance
and
statutory
clarity
on
an
area
where
none
currently
exists
by
granting
that
exclusive
jurisdiction
to
the
juvenile
court
to
hear
petitions
for
protection
orders
when
the
potential
adverse
party
is
in
fact
a
juvenile
one
thing
we
have
seen
and
jud
zergosa
conveyed
her
experience
in
clark
county
with
las
vegas
justice
court
in
the
eighth
is
that
it's
handled
somewhat
differently
in
other
counties.
J
So
another
goal
of
this
bill
is
to
make
it
uniform
across
the
state
and
bring
clarity
to
that
subject.
So,
in
the
the
rare
event
where
a
protection
order
is
sought
against
a
juvenile,
it
would
again
bring
that
clarity.
Also
currently
in
justice
court.
They
have
the
statutory
authority
to
issue,
what's
called
a
protection
order
or
an
order
for
protection
of
minors
or
children.
J
J
One
is
the
conference
of
jurisdiction
to
the
juvenile
court,
the
district
court
for
protection
orders
regarding
domestic
violence,
stalking
harassment,
high-risk
behavior,
sexual
assault
and
aggravate
and
stalking
against
juvenile
adverse
parties
to
this
to
the
district
court,
the
juvenile
court
there
and
her
harassment
in
the
workplace
is
included
as
well.
I'm
sorry
the
protection
order,
type,
that's
left
out
of
the
statute
is
that
protection
order
on
order
for
protection
minors,
because
that
can't
be
issued
against
a
juvenile.
So
it's
not
mentioned
here.
J
We
did.
We
were
in
in
discussions
with
the
public
defenders
offices
yesterday
and
cut
sort
of
last
minute,
and
I
apologize
for
that.
I
submitted
an
amendment
that
removed
subsection
two
from
the
original
bill,
because
there
was
concern
about
appointing
council
and
being
that
the
the
court
probably
has
the
inherent
authority
to
appoint
council
as
necessary.
We
thought
that
didn't
need
to
be
addressed
in
this
bill.
J
Section
subsection
three
in
the
the
original
language
just
indicates
that
the
protection
order
has
to
be
served
against
the
the
juvenile
who's
the
adverse
party,
as
well
as
the
parent
or
guardian
of
that
child
section
four,
would
have
required
the
the
the
protection
order
be
transmitted
to
the
school
at
which
the
adverse
party
or
the
protected
party
attends
and
in
discussion
with
public
defenders.
We
thought
that
was
probably
not
necessary
in
this
case,
so
the
amendment
would
remove
that
as
as
well
subsection.
J
What
is
five
in
the
original
bill
just
reiterates
that
the
juvenile
court
has
exclusive
jurisdiction
when
a
child
is
alleged
to
have
violated
the
order,
and
that
addresses
the
issue
that
judge
zaragoza
brought
up
about
not
being
able
to
hold
justice
courts
not
being
able
to
hold
the
juvenile
contempt,
etc.
J
Section
subsection
six
in
the
original
bill
indicates
that
if
a
protection
order
is
issued
against
the
juvenile
and
they
turn
18
during
the
time
in
which
that
order
is
effective,
that
that
order
would
remain
effective
until
its
expiration
date
or
until
the
juvenile
court
dissolved.
That
order
so
it
it
addresses
what
will
certainly
be
a
very
small
small
set
of
cases.
J
If,
if
we're
looking
at
ten
cases
in
the
the
busiest
jurisdiction
in
the
state,
where
that
age
crossover
from
childhood
to
adulthood
for
like
a
better
way
to
put
it
occurs,
and
also
in
subsection,
what
is
seven
of
the
original
bill?
It
allows
or
it
has
the
juvenile
court
automatically
seal
the
records
related
to
these
matters
when
the
adverse
party
reaches
an
age
of
21..
We
have
been
discussing
with
public
defenders
as
well,
and
there
may
be
some
concern
about
that
age.
J
That
age
was
copied
sort
of
from
some
other
sections
in
chapter
62,
but
as
I've
indicated
we're
more
than
happy
to
continue
the
discussions
and
open
to
amending
as
necessary.
J
Section
two
of
the
bill
is
sort
of
the
for
lack
of
better
term
cleanup
section
where
it
makes
clear
that
a
justice
court
does
not
have
jurisdiction
in
these
protection
order.
J
Cases
when
the
adverse
potential
adverse
party
is
a
juvenile
and
it
adds
that
is
appropriate
through
throughout
nrs
4.370,
which
is
the
justice
court
jurisdiction
statute
and
then
section
3
deals
with
sort
of
any
protection
orders
that
would
fall
in
the
gap
between
effective
dates
on
the
bills,
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
leave
somebody
who
had
an
order
without
an
order.
J
So
that's
sort
of
a
quick
overview
of
the
bill
and
again
the
the
main
goals
here
are
to
provide
that
statutory
clarity
and
fill
that
gap
to
make
it
clear
where,
when
why?
How
a
protection
order
is
handled
when
the
potential
adverse
party
is
juvenile,
and
it
also
makes
it
clear
that
protection
orders
in
in
circumstances
like
this
are
available.
For
example,
in
the
circumstance
where
say
two
17
year
olds
were
in
a
dating
relationship
and
there
was
an
allegation
of
domestic
violence.
J
This
would
allow
the
the
victim
there
to
request
protection
order
clearly
through
the
juvenile
court.
So
I
think
it
fills
a
little
gap
there
as
well.
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
bill
in
a
nutshell.
As
I've
said,
we're
happy
to
work
continue
to
work
with
the
public
defenders.
I'm
sure
they'll
testify
in
opposition
pursuant
to
the
committee's
rules,
but
we
are
we're
happy
to
work
with
them
as
well
as
anyone
else
on
this.
A
Matter,
thank
you.
So
much.
I
see
a
couple
members
of
the
committee
have
questions.
I
also
have
a
question
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
get
mine
out
of
the
way
first,
and
I'm
wondering
if
I
was
actually
surprised
to
hear
that
there
are
only
there
are
only
10
of
these
cases.
A
Would
we
want
the
protective
order
to
be
able
to
be
heard
by
the
district
court
and
the
second
kind
of
situation
that
I'm
thinking
of
is
where
protection
orders
are
sought
between
multiple
parties
like
two
neighbors
or
you
know,
two
families
that
are
in
need
of
some
distance?
And
so
would
we
end
up
with
mom
and
dad
in
district
court?
And
you
know
the
16
year
old,
neighbor
in
juvenile
court
and
create
an
even
messier
situation
than
if
they
all
just
went
up
to
the
district
court.
I
Churchill,
excellent
hypotheticals,
I'm
thinking
in
my
head
of
kind
of
how
those
would
work
themselves
out
in
our
in
our
system
before
I
even
answer
that
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
I
am
honest
and
open
with
my
comments
when
I
said
the
10.,
I
can't
we
don't
have
any
method
of
data
counting
the
exact
number
of
those
cases.
So
what
I
can
tell
you
is
this:
I
have
canvassed
my
bench
multiple
times
on
this
issue.
I
We
also
had
a
related
differently
structured
bill
last
session
and
the
numbers
have
remained
the
same.
I
can't
find
judges
on
my
bench
who
can
identify
more
than
10
in
any
given
year.
Sometimes
it's
they
can
remember
six,
but
it's
anecdotal
because
we
don't
keep
track
of
that
data
point
and
many
times
we'll
get
a
stalking
and
harassment
protected
or
application.
I
I
I
think
those
are
a
really
really
excellent
point
in
terms
of,
if
that,
if
the
underlying
behavior
is
a
result
of
a
of
a
case
so,
for
example,
protection
against
sexual
assault,
it
happens,
we
have
a
juvenile
sexual
assault,
division
and
those
cases
do
arise
and
it's
not
uncommon
in
a
serious
situation
where
that
juvenile
may
be
tried
as
an
adult
and
again
the
justice
court
being
kind
of
in
the
middle
of
that
whole
thing,
because
ultimately,
that
case
is
going
to
get
tried
before
the
district
court.
I
I
Again,
those
those
protective
orders
are
individual,
they
name
an
individual
adverse
party,
not
a
family,
as
you
you
know,
put
forth.
I
haven't
seen
a
case
like
that.
I've
seen
definite
cases
where
there
are
neighbors
that
are
bothered
by
the
children
of
their
neighbors
and
people,
throwing
rocks
and
doing
juvenile
things,
and
I've
definitely
seen
those
I've
never
seen
one
where
there
are
adults
charged
in
one
case
and
juveniles
in
another.
I
But
that's
not
to
say
it
hasn't
happened.
I
think
those
are
good
nuggets
of
things
to
to
chew
on
and
think
about,
and
I
think
that
might
end
up.
You
know
potentially
restructuring
section
one
of
the
bill,
but
I
don't
think
it
would
impact
section
two.
I
just
don't
think
justice
courts
the
place
for
it
in
the
long
run.
A
Okay,
that
answers
my
question,
because
you
have
so
much
more
experience
with
this
than
I
do
so.
I
appreciate
you
giving
us
that
context.
I
am
going
to
move
next
to
senator
harris.
E
Thank
you,
chair
schaible.
I
did
not
originally
have
a
question
until
mr
mccormick
mentioned
that
they
were
going
to
be
amending
out
section
two
and
I
I
guess
I
didn't
quite
understand
why
that
amendment
was
being
was
being.
Could
you
run
me
back
through
the
logic
on
that.
J
Thank
you
senator
for
the
record
john
mccormick,
the
in
discussions
with
the
the
public
defenders
offices.
There
was
a
concern
about
increasing
a
caseload,
I
believe
for
them
by
requiring
the
appointment
of
counsel,
and
I
believe
that
there
they,
the
offices
were,
were
more
and
they
will
have
to
speak
to
this
a
little
bit
more
again.
I
I
think
we're
we're
in
process
working
with
them
that
I
think
an
alternate.
J
I
think
there
would
be
more
comfortable
without
the
specific
provision
to
appoint
council.
However,
I
think
the
the
court
has
that
inherent
authority
to
appoint
council
for
a
juvenile,
certainly
in
a
delinquency
matter,
that's
required
in
62b030.
I
think
I
could
be
wrong
on
that.
I'm
sure
nick
could
correct
me,
and
so
particularly
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
was
more
comfortable
with
that
section
being
removed.
J
I
think,
in
the
event
that
a
juvenile
was
alleged
to
have
violated
an
order,
then
that
would
either
be
a
contempt
issue
or
be
a
delinquency
issue
where
the
child
could
face
potential
loss
of
liberty,
so
I
think
council
would
have
to
be
appointed
in
that
case.
So
that's
kind
of
the
the
story
behind
that,
and
hopefully
mr
piro
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office,
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
their
concern.
With
that
section.
E
Okay,
mr
mccormick,
maybe
I'll,
have
to
you're
right,
maybe
have
to
bring
this
on
to
them,
but
it
seems
to
me
subsection
two
is
already
permissive.
It
doesn't
require
the
appointment
of
counsel
and
are
you
did
I
hear
you
correctly
in
saying
that
the
court
already
has
the
authority
to
do
what's
in
subsection
two
currently.
J
Again,
I
I
am
not
the
the
arbiter
of
inherent
powers
of
the
court,
but
I
think
a
strong
argument.
Oh
sorry,
john
mccormick,
for
the
record,
I
think
an
argument
could
be
made
that
the
court
has
the
inherent
authority
to
appoint
council,
as
they
see
see
it
necessary,
particularly
in
the
juvenile
arena.
J
So
honestly,
how
that
ended
up
there
is
in
drafting.
We
were
looking
at
the
statute
from
ohio,
ohio
kind
of
pioneered
this
and
I
have
a
whole
statutory
scheme,
and
I
I
borrowed
very
liberally
from
their
statute
in
trying
to
come
up
sort
of
with
this
language
and
that
just
kind
of
got
transferred
over
honestly.
F
I'm
sure-
and
yes,
you
actually
asked
one
of
them,
madam
chair,
and
that
was
much
better
stated
that
I
would
have
so.
I
appreciate
you
answering
that
one.
My
question
I
mean
I
remember
when
this
came
up
like
three
or
four
years
ago,
and
this
was
an
access
to
justice
issue,
which
is
why
we
left
it
in
the
justice
courts,
but
specifically
the
first
question.
F
I
have
regards
the
high-risk
behavior,
which
33550
really
is
about
the
behaviors
tied
to
firearms
and
where
minors
aren't
legally
owners
of
firearms,
but
there
are
probably
firearms
in
the
home.
My
concern
is
a
practical
one.
If
we
end
up
with
a
situation
where
a
minor
now
is
without
or
is,
is
deemed
to
be
engaging
in
some
high-risk
behavior
and
there
are
firearms
in
the
home.
Are
we
then
requiring
those
to
be
confiscated
from
the
home?
Ultimately,
then,
from
people
who
are
not
implicated
in
the
high-risk
behavior
order,
how
does
that
work?
J
Thank
you
senator
pickard,
for
the
record
john
mccormick
not
to
to
split
hairs
here.
I
think,
because
there
was
no
specific
statutory
prohibition
against
an
order,
a
high
risk,
behavior
protection
order
being
issued
against
a
juvenile
that
as
a
practical
matter,
it
was
included
in
this
bill.
I
think
that
would
more
be
a
policy
question,
perhaps
for
the
legislative
body
to
determine,
if
that
is
the
intent
of
those.
J
The
only
protection
order
that
was
excluded
in
drafting,
like
I
said,
is
the
one
that
specifically
statutorily
cannot
be
issued
against
a
minor
and
again
I
I
think
that
would
in
practical
sort
of
terms
if
this
were
to,
you
know,
pass
and
be
effective
tomorrow
in
this
form,
I
think
that,
in
the
event
that
somebody
petitioned
for
an
order,
a
high-risk,
behavior
protection
order,
the
court
would
have
to
analyze
that
and
determine
because
it
was
against
the
juvenile
who
can't
legally
own
the
firearms
if
access
to
the
firearms
was
an
issue
in
that
specific
case
and-
and
one
thing
this
is-
is
somewhat
related
kind
of
anecdotally.
J
One
thing
we
have
seen
since
the
implementation
of
the
high-risk
behavior
protection
orders
is
that
the
vast
majority
of
those
and
we'll
actually
talk
more
about
this
when
another
bill
comes
up
that
I
won't
mention,
so
they
don't
have
to
put
it
in
minutes.
But
anecdotally.
The
vast
majority
of
sort
of
family
applications
for
high-risk
behavior
orders
have
actually
been
found
to
be
more
appropriate
for
one
of
the
gener
one
of
the
standard
for
lack
of
better
term
protection
orders,
usually
domestic
violence
or
stalking
and
harassment.
J
So
again,
that's
just
just
sort
of
another
piece
of
information,
but
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
policy
question
again
for
for
the
legislature
if
they
were
to.
If
you
were
to
determine
that,
because
juveniles
can't
legally
own
firearms,
you
didn't
want
high-risk,
behavior
orders
for
those
persons,
but.
F
Well,
I
appreciate
that
I
mean
my
thought
really
was:
do
we
muddy
the
water
by
naming
them
since
the
high-risk
protection
order
really
was
designed
for
only
adults,
and
I
think
that's
why
the
exclusion
occurred,
not
that
it
was
a
deliberate
step
to
exclude
juveniles,
but
it
didn't
apply
to
them
because
they
don't
own
firearms
and
in
many
respects-
and
I
recall
the
presentation
fairly
well-
that
this
was
a
means
for
family
members
to
obtain
the
high-risk
behavior
order
where
they
were
potentially
a
threat
to
themselves.
F
I
won't
belabor
that
point
too
much
more.
Let
me
just
ask
my
final
question.
If
I
may,
madam
chair,
and
that's
currently
in
clark
county
anyway,
most
the
juvenile
cases
are
heard
by
the
juvenile
hearing
master
or
hearing
masters,
and
are
we
maintaining
that
since
we're
taking
this
away
from
the
justice
courts?
Are
we
maintaining
the
juvenile
hearing
masters
and
their
ability
to
hear
these
cases
or
are
all
of
these
cases
going
to
be
routed
to
our
one
juvenile
district
court
judge.
J
For
the
record
again
john
mccormick
senator
pickard,
this
bill
does
not
touch
on
that.
It
doesn't
amend
the
existing
statutory
provisions
they
allow
the
appointment
of
masters,
so
I
believe
masters
would
obviously
be,
would
be
able
to
hear
these
matters
practically,
and
I
think
that
that
also
raises
a
good
point
in
some
rural
communities
and
that
may
be
where
an
access
to
justice
concern
comes
up.
J
The
justices
of
the
peace
locally
have
been
appointed
as
a
juvenile
master
to
provide
juvenile
court
in
the
local
community,
so
this
would
actually
allow
practically
for
the
same
court
to
be
applied
to
for
the
order,
but
it
would
be
done
under
the
auspices
of
the
juvenile
court.
So
again,
there's
no
intention
in
this
bill
to
prohibit
a
master
from
doing
that,
and
I
think
broadly
particularly
in
family
court
jurisdictions
like
clark
and
washoe
counties,
because
the
district
court
is
the
juvenile
court.
F
A
Absolutely
it
looks
like
we
have
two
more
senators
with
questions.
I
will
go
first
to
senator
orrinshaw.
K
Thank
you
chair.
I
have
two
questions.
If
the
if
the
chair
will
indulge
me
on
section
one
sub,
I
believe
we're
at
sub
three.
K
In
terms
of
the
notification
to
schools,
as
I
understand
it,
currently
school
notification-
you
know
happens
with
just
some
of
the
most
serious.
You
know
juvenile
sex
offense
adjudications.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering
with
this.
This
I'm
just
a
little
worried
about
about
notifying.
K
If
one
of
these
orders
exists
with
school
notification,
what
effect
it
might
have
on
you
know
the
child
attending
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
that,
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
based
on
the
ohio
legislation
or
where
that
comes
from,
but
that
seems
like
a
big
leap
from
current
nevada
law
with
kids
who've
been
adjudicated
delinquent
for
those
serious
sexual
offenses.
K
Only
and
then
in
terms
of
the
record
sealing
with
I
I
under
I
heard
there
was
testimony
about
trying
to
possibly
move
that,
but
setting
it
at
21
concerns
me
because
currently,
I
think
under
nrs62h130,
if
a
child's
adjudicated
delinquent
they're
potentially
eligible
to
have
their
juvenile
record,
sealed
even
younger
than
18..
So
I'm
kind
of
concerned
about
pushing
this
up.
When
you
know
it's
it's
it
may
not
be.
You
know
it
certainly
doesn't
match
what
car
lies
on
delinquent
offenses.
I
The
point
that
you
touched
on
originally
about
the
reporting
it
to
the
school.
That
was
the
issue
that
I
discussed
with
john
pirro
of
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office
yesterday
and
kendra
bertie.
I
believe
you
pronounce
her
last
name
from
the
washoe
public
defender's
office.
I
We
had
a
conference
call
yesterday
and
talked
about
a
couple
of
these
issues,
and
that
is
one
I
don't
think
the
cur
the
court
wants
to
be
in
the
position
of
having
the
burden
of
hunting
down
which
schools
are
applicable
to
serve
those
documents
and
two.
We
we
concurred
after
discussion
to
remove
that
section.
So
the
amendment
that
john
mccormick
has
prepared
does
amend
that
section
to
delete
those
school
reporting
requirements.
I
The
second
issue,
with
respect
to
the
age
of
sealing,
was
another
issue
that
we
touched
upon
in
our
conversation
yesterday
and
were
completely
open
to
any
amendment.
With
respect
to
that,
it's
it
doesn't
appear
to
me
to
be
any
issue
to
seal
that
upon
expiration.
If
it's
not,
if
there's
no
application
to
extend
it
further,
there
would
be
no
reason
not
to
seal
it
upon
expiration,
and
I
have
no
issue
with
any
sort
of
amendment
along
those
lines.
J
And
sorry,
if
I,
if
I
may,
share
john
mccormack
for
the
record
and
I
I
will
own
the
the
school
reporting,
I
stole
that
from
ohio.
So
in
retrospect
it's
probably
not
right
for
nevada
and
then
also
what
in
drafting
where
it
references,
62h
140
in
the
record
ceiling.
That
is
when
the
record
is
mandatorily
sealed
at
21.
So
that
was
the
idea
here,
at
least
in
my
thinking,
is
that
these
are
mandatorily
sealed
at
21..
J
However,
I
think
what
we
could
do
a
mandatorily,
if
that's
a
word,
if
not
I'm
making
it
up,
is
include
a
reference
to
62
h130
here
that
a
juvenile
adverse
party
could
move
prior
to
age
21
to
seal
the
record.
E
Thank
you
cheers
for
allowing
me
to
ask
the
second
question.
I
apologize
to
the
committee
for
not
having
them
all
together
on
the
first
round.
I've
noticed
that
nrs
33.400
is
excluded
from
section
one
subsection.
One.
I've
been
informed
that
this
is
actually
a
common
way
that
protection
orders
against
juveniles
are
brought.
E
Is
it
your
intention
to
have
those
not
be
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
juvenile
court,
or
was
that
an
oversight?
Can
you
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
why
that's
not
included
senator.
I
Harris
this
is
jeff
sergosa.
I'm
can
address
that
issue.
No,
it
was
not
an
oversight
and
not
any
intention
to
exclude
them.
Nrs
33
400
is
the
provision
of
law
that
allows
for
a
petition
on
behalf
of
a
child,
so
we
refer
to
them
as
a
protection
of
minor
protective
order
in
that
statute,
that
is
in
existence.
I
That's
the
current
language
in
that
particular
provision,
which
is
why
it
was
intentionally,
I
guess,
left
out
of
the
juvenile
provision,
because
the
language
speaks
clearly
that
you
can't
get
one
of
those
against
a
juvenile.
I
don't
know
why
that
is
the
only
protective
order
statute
that
has
that
sort
of
age
restriction
which
was
unusual
and
I'm
not
sure
the
legislative
history
behind
that.
But
that
was
the
reason
that
it
was
excluded
from
this
particular
bill.
E
Okay,
and
so
let
me
just
make
sure
I
understand
it-
is
your
contention
that
those
that
section
cannot
be
used
to
bring
a
protection
order
against
a
minor.
A
So
that
raises
a
follow-up
question
for
me.
Basically,
I
understand
33.400
to
be
the
statute
that
allows
a
parent
to
get
a
protective
order
against
an
adult
on
behalf
of
their
child
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
Would
this
bill
allow
a
parent
to
also
get
a
protective
order
on
behalf
of
their
child
against
another
minor.
J
For
the
record
john
mccormick
chair,
I
believe
that
that
would
theoretically
be
permissible
under
here.
I
don't
know
that
we
specifically
address
the
parent
on
applying
on
behalf
of
the
minor,
but
the
this
the
bill,
as
proposed,
only
addresses
the
adverse
party,
not
necessarily
the
protected
party.
So
I
think
if
that
was
a
concern,
you
could
have
a
provision
allowing
for
that,
but
I
guess
so.
J
There
would
have
to
be
some
legal
analysis
on
whether
or
not
the
parent
could
apply
for
the
order
on
behalf
of
the
child,
with
the
the
juvenile
court
against
the
against
the
juvenile
adverse
party.
Our
concern,
I
think
here
was
the
adverse
party,
not
necessarily
the
potential
or
the
protected
party.
I
Church,
may
I
please
judge
sarah
gosa.
I
think
one
of
the
issues
is
the
judiciary's
always
very
cautious,
of
stepping
on
the
legislative
toes
if
you
will
and
it's
not
our
intent
to
create
policy.
So
what
we
were
trying
to
present
before
you
was
a
manner
of
providing
clarity
of
the
jurisdiction
over
the
adverse
party
and
by
all
means.
I
I
hear
you
loud
and
clear
and
not
from
a
judicial
hat,
but
from
a
parent
hat.
I
A
All
right,
I
think
that
answers
my
question.
Are
there
any
other
questions
from
the
committee.
A
I
am
not
seeing
any
other
questions,
so
thank
you
so
much
for
your
presentation.
We
will
move
on
now
to
testimony
in
support
of
sb7.
D
L
I
am
a
district
judge
with
the
second
judicial
district
court,
the
immediate
past
presiding
judge
of
the
family
division
of
that
court
and
currently
the
delinquency
business
unit,
a
presiding
judge
for
that
court,
and
I
and
my
colleagues
are
in
favor
of
sb
seven
and
for
the
exact
reasons
that
have
already
been
stated
by
judge
saragosa,
that
we
believe
that
there
was
a
jurisdictional
issue
and
the
district
court
is
in
a
better
position
already
having
the
juvenile
court
to
be
able
to
deal
with
the
tpo
issues
involving
juveniles.
L
If
I
can
very
briefly
answer,
in
addition,
some
of
the
questions
that
were
asked
by
both
the
chair
and
senators
chair
scheibel,
you
had
asked
a
question
with
regard
to
serious
cases
involving
things
such
as
sexual
assault,
and
I
can
tell
you,
having
presided
over
those
cases,
that
there
is
almost
always
an
order.
L
L
A
Thank
you
judge,
rob
for
your
testimony.
It
doesn't
look
like
there
are
any
questions,
but
I
would
encourage
senators
to
follow
up
offline
with
judge
rob
if
you
would
like
if
you
would
like,
and
we
will
move
on
to
the
next
person
in
support.
A
D
D
D
M
Good
afternoon
this
is
john
pirro
j-o-h-n-p-I-r-o
from
the
clark
county
public
defender's
office.
I'd
like
to
first
start
by
saying
that
we
fully
agree
that
tpos
and
extended
protection
orders
involving
juveniles
should
be
handled
in
juvenile
court
as
opposed
to
justice
court.
However,
at
this
time,
pursuant
to
committee
rules,
we
have
to
oppose
the
bill,
but,
as
mr
mccormack
and
judge
saragosa
stated,
we
have
a
good
working
relationship
with
them
and
we
believe
that
we'll
be
able
to
work
this
situation
out
and
move
us
out
of
the
opposition
position.
M
First,
I'd
like
to
say
that
one
of
our
first
issues
was
section
one
subsection,
two
with
appointment
of
counsel-
and
I
want
to
address
senator
harris's
concerns.
As
judge
seragosa
said
they
do
not
have
the
exact
numbers,
they
think
it's
ten
cases.
It
could
be
ten
cases,
but
currently
in
2019,
our
juvenile
attorneys,
and
we
only
have
11
of
them
right
now
handled
2,
979
cases,
that's
270
cases
per
attorney
in
2020.
It
was
a
little
bit
different
because
of
the
pandemic.
M
They
handled
1732
cases
between
11
attorneys
and
that
was
157
cases
per
attorney,
so
adding
any
more
workload.
Without
increasing
a
body
in
that
office
is
a
concern
for
our
office
and
may
trigger
us
to
run
the
numbers
and
perhaps
put
a
fiscal
note
on
the
bill.
That's
why
the
goal
was
to
remove
section
two,
even
though
the
court
does
have
discretion
to
do
that,
it
has
been
our
experience
and
and
no
disrespect
to
the
judges
that,
when
the
judge
has
the
option
to
appoint
they
do
a
point.
M
Our
second
concern
was,
with
section
one,
subsection,
four
notification
to
the
kids
schools
and
senator
orange
all
hit
on
our
concern
with
that
as
well.
But
mr
mccormick
said
they
are
willing
to
remove
that.
We
don't
want
notification
to
the
kids
school
to
be
used
as
a
way
to
remove
a
kid
from
school
and
therefore
exacerbate
the
problem
with
the
school-to-prison
pipeline,
especially
if
it's
something
as
simple
as
a
fight
between
students
and
again
we're
in
talks
with
the
sponsor,
and
perhaps
we
would
fix
that.
M
Our
next
concern
is
section
one
sub
7,
which
allows
for
the
automatic
record
sealing
and,
as
mr
mccormick
said,
we
can
fix
that
as
well
and,
lastly,
section
1
sub
5
with
the
contempt
of
court.
So
those
are
our
concerns
with
the
bill
and
we're
hoping
that
we'll
be
able
to
work
this
out
and
move
us
out
of
the
opposition
position.
D
L
Good
afternoon
this
is
kendra
burchie,
k-e-n-d-r-a,
birchie
b-e-r-t-s-c-h-y,
and
for
the
record,
I'm
the
lobbyist
for
the
washoe
county,
public
defender's
office
good
afternoon
scheibel
and
members
of
the
senate
judiciary.
I
first
want
to
thank
the
bill's
sponsors,
especially
judge
rob,
judge
zaragoza
and
mr
mccormick
for
speaking
with
myself,
as
well
as
mr
pirro
yesterday
regarding
this
bill,
we
appreciate
their
willingness
to
meet
with
us.
Consider
our
concerns
as
well
as
commit
to
continue
to
work
with
us
to
address
these
issues.
L
L
With
that
in
mind,
my
office
differs
from
mr
pirro's
office,
in
that
we
believe
it
is
critical
to
mandate
that
attorneys
are
appointed
to
these
cases
as
soon
as
possible,
so
that
we
can
help
ensure
that
juveniles
understand
expectations,
understand
the
order
and
has
someone
advocating
in
court
on
their
behalf.
So,
regarding
section
one
subsection,
two
of
the
bill,
we
strongly
believe
that
there
needs
to
be
that
mandate
that
a
council
is
appointed.
L
But
even
with
that
in
mind,
we
we
believe
that,
because
of
the
consequences
of
these
issues
and
these
orders
and
potentials,
what
happens
if
a
order
is
violated
due
to
the
significance,
it
justifies
the
mandate
of
having
an
attorney,
as
mr
farrell
indicated,
our
other
concern
was
specifically
regarding
section
1,
subsection.
Seven.
I
believe
that
I
heard
judge
sergosa
indicate
that
she
would
be
in
favor
of
allowing
automatic
ceiling
upon
the
expiration
of
the
order.
L
Additionally,
nrs
33.560
sets
forth
a
process
that
would
allow
an
adverse
party
to
request
information
to
be
removed
from
the
central
repository,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
would
be
applied
in
these
cases.
For
example,
if
the
court
decided
that
they
did
not
have
the
ability
to
extend
a
protective
order,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
provision
is
set
forth
as
well.
L
The
additional
concern
that
we
have
is
just
with
the
process
in
terms
of
how
service
is
effectuated
on
these
children,
for
example,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
no
one
believes
it's
appropriate
to
serve
and
to
have
an
officer
go
to
a
minor
child's
school
and
serve
them
at
school.
We
look
forward
to
the
continued
conversations
to
ensure
that
we
adequately
adequately
protect
our
children
and
don't
put
any
legislation
that
unintentionally
causes
harm.
Thank
you.
D
A
A
All
right,
then,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
help.
Seeing
no
further
testimony,
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb7.
A
I
would
like
to
ask,
however,
that
the
sponsors
of
the
bill
we
would
like
to
take
you
up
on
your
offer
to
provide
us
with
the
order
that
you
mentioned
from
the
may
2018
case
that
that
was
utilized
to
explore
these
jurisdictional
issues
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
our
next
and
what
I
believe
is
our
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
A
I
would
like
to
remind
everybody
who
wants
to
make
a
public
comment
that
they
are
limited
to
two
minutes,
but
they
can
always
submit
additional
comments
in
writing,
and
at
this
time
I
will
ask
our
fantastic
staff
at
bps
to
open
up
the
phone
lines
for
public
comment.
Oh
and
also
state
your
name
and
spell
it
for
the
record
when
you
get
on
the
phone.
A
All
right,
then,
unless
there
is
anything
from
any
members
of
the
committee,
it
doesn't
look
like
it.
Then
that
concludes
our
agenda.
For
today
we
will
be
adjourned
until
1pm
on
monday
and
have
a
great
weekend.