Senate committee hears bill to let caseworkers witness adoption consents in rural Nevada

Carson City — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday heard testimony on SB 4, a bill that would amend NRS 127.053 to allow a caseworker employed by an authorized child‑welfare agency to serve as one of two witnesses to a parent’s consent to adoption.

Deputy Administrator Betsy Crumrine of the Division of Child and Family Services told the committee the change is aimed at rural offices that sometimes lack a social worker on site. “Having this requirement that is only a social worker that can witness a consent to adopt is proving to be a hardship for the division given the number of small offices that we have in rural areas,” Crumrine said. She said the division broadened hiring to people with related degrees to address vacancy rates and now seeks statutory authority to let those caseworkers serve as the required witness.

The bill would not remove the two‑witness requirement; it would permit either a social worker or a caseworker employed by an authorized agency to serve as the statutorily required social‑work witness. Crumrine said Washoe and Clark counties reviewed the proposal prior to the BDR and support the change. “This will also assist smaller offices where the agency must provide a witness that has not had any prior involvement in a case,” she said, describing how emergency or on‑call duties can further reduce the available witness pool in offices with only a few staff.

Committee members asked for details about which caseworkers would qualify. Senator Krasner pressed for a definition: “Who would those certain caseworkers be?” Crumrine responded that the division hires people with related degrees under a class specification introduced to reduce vacancy rates; she said the caseworker classification was created precisely to allow non‑social‑worker but related‑degree staff to be hired and perform child‑welfare functions.

Washoe County representative Cadence Matevich and Jeff Rogan representing Clark County testified in support. Matevich said, “We have caseworkers that are very much involved with these kids, and we think that they are appropriate to give the attestation.” Rogan told the committee Clark County supports the bill for the same reasons.

No one offered opposition or neutral testimony in person or on the phone during the hearing, and the committee did not take a vote at the conclusion of testimony. The bill’s sponsor and staff told members that, if not changed, the current statute can lead to months‑long delays when a parent is available to consent but a social worker is not present in a rural office.

The committee recorded the hearing and accepted written comments into the official record; no floor action or vote on SB 4 was recorded at the meeting.

The Judiciary Committee recessed to its next agenda item after closing the SB 4 hearing.