Nevada bill would let parents notarize guardian nominations, bar for‑profit guardians and add registry access

CARSON CITY — A bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee would allow parents to file a notarized form naming a trusted person to serve as a guardian for a minor and put that nomination into the secretary of state's secure registry.

Assembly Bill 460, presented to the committee by Fabian Donate on behalf of Assemblywoman Gonzales, would add a notarized nomination form parents could use to identify a guardian "over the person, the estate, or both of the minor child," and would integrate that nomination into the Nevada lockbox, a registry managed by the secretary of state. Donate told the committee the measure "removes the authority of the state secretary of state to charge and collect a fee for the registration of this document," and that it "prohibits the appointment for of a private for profit guardian."

Supporters say the change is intended to help families in emergencies. "This bill addresses a significant and often overlooked gap for families affected by sudden emergencies," Donate said, describing scenarios such as a parent diagnosed with a terminal illness who wants to name someone to care for a child if hospitalization or death prevents them from doing so.

Nut graf: AB 460 would create an explicit, notarized nomination pathway and put entries in a secure registry so hospitals, courts and schools can verify a parent's naming in emergencies; it also seeks to limit the use of private, for‑profit guardians and eliminate the registration fee the secretary of state could otherwise charge.

Committee members questioned how AB 460 fits with current guardianship statutes and what the nomination actually creates in practice. Jonathan Norman, who answered legal questions for the presenters, said "currently under 1 59 a is our minor guardianship statute" and explained that the nomination in AB 460 would not itself create a guardianship. "A nomination isn't a guardianship. You still have to go to court, and then it would flow the same way all our minor guardianships do," he said, adding courts would still hold hearings and family members could object.

Members pressed on multiple scenarios the bill would touch. Senator Ellison asked what would happen if a parent who had been out of a child's life reappeared after a mother named a family member as guardian; Norman said the father would retain parental rights and could object at the guardianship hearing. Senators asked whether divorced parents could file competing nominations and how a nomination might be revoked or end; Norman said the nomination is intended to be a record of parental wish but that a filed guardianship petition and subsequent court process govern the actual appointment and termination.

AB 460 also contains language aimed at temporary guardianships in emergency cases. Donate said the bill strengthens procedural safeguards for temporary guardianships where a parent may be separated from a child for urgent reasons and clarifies that a temporary guardianship must be "in the interest of the child in cases where there is no parent who has custody in for the previous 6 months." Committee members asked whether the bill sets an end date or automatic termination; presenters said the nomination can be updated by the parent and termination of an actual guardianship requires court filing, as under current law.

Testimony: Jeff Rogan, representing Clark County, gave brief in‑person support; there were no callers for or against the bill during the hearing.

Committee action: The committee moved into a work session on AB 460 and Vice Chair Flores moved an "amend and do pass" recommendation; Senator Wynne seconded. After brief discussion, the committee approved the motion. The roll call recorded the nays as Senators Hansen and Ellison; the motion carried.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill fills practical gaps that can leave children unprotected when parents are suddenly unavailable and provides an accessible way to express a parent's preferences while preserving court oversight of any guardianship. Opponents and some members sought clarity about conflicts between parents' nominations and parental rights, how competing nominations would be handled, and whether the bill leaves sufficient procedural safeguards around appointment and revocation.

The committee assigned the floor statement to Senator Donate and closed the work session on AB 460.

Ending: The committee moved on to a separate bill after approving the recommendation; AB 460 will proceed to the floor with the committee's recommendation.