Assembly committee hears bill to ban coercive 'reunification' therapy in custody cases

The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 275 on Feb. 1, 2025, legislation sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro to modify Nevada family‑law procedures and restrict certain court‑ordered reunification therapies in child custody proceedings.

Cannizzaro said the bill — described in testimony as Nevada’s version of “Caden’s Law” or the Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act under the federal Violence Against Women Act incentives — is intended to prevent practices that advocates call coercive and harmful to children. Marshall Willlick, a family‑law practitioner who testified for proponents, described the worst forms of so‑called reunification programs as “systematized brainwashing intended specifically to cause Stockholm syndrome,” and said courts and legislatures that have reviewed those programs found them harmful.

SB 275 would: define “reunification treatment”; prohibit courts from ordering a child to undergo reunification treatment unless the court first makes specific findings that the treatment is safe, effective and therapeutically appropriate; prohibit removal of a child or restrictions on a custodial parent solely to improve a deficient relationship; limit who may offer expert testimony about alleged domestic violence or child abuse to professionals with demonstrated expertise; require courts to consider prior evidence of domestic violence or child abuse, including protection orders, arrests and convictions; and require the Administrative Office of the Courts to include ongoing training on domestic violence and best practices for court personnel.

The hearing included multiple emotional in‑person and phone witnesses who said they and their children suffered harm when courts ordered or allowed out‑of‑state “reunification” programs. Kim Chen, a retired anesthesiologist who testified on behalf of a family, described three children who were taken to a New York program; one child was hospitalized and medicated for 72 hours after an incident, Chen said. Two children who testified in person — identified in the record as Hannah Vahey and Selena Vahey — described being removed from the mother they named as their primary caregiver, being isolated and coerced during an out‑of‑state program and suffering ongoing anxiety and nightmares after returning. Hannah told the committee, “My father physically, mentally, and emotionally abused us, and the court helped to do it.”

Marsha Willick, a Nevada family‑law practitioner who said she has litigated multiple such cases, urged the committee to adopt the bill’s ban on coerced reunification therapy. She told members the program originators have not produced peer‑reviewed science supporting the interventions and that in her experience the programs harmed children and families.

Supporters included several witnesses who said reunification programs have split families, caused psychiatric hospitalization and led to long separations. Several callers, including parents and adult survivors, described lengthy periods in which courts issued temporary orders that, in their accounts, became extended separations measured in years.

One caller who identified as a pro se litigant and Afghanistan War veteran said he opposed the bill narrowly and urged the committee to expand protections to cover emotional and psychological abuse; he said the current draft focuses on physical and sexual abuse and may exclude certain forms of coercive control. Cannizzaro said sponsors would continue working to tighten language and address concerns while preserving mechanisms to protect children at risk.

The committee closed the hearing without a vote. Proponents said they would continue to refine the bill and work with stakeholders on amendments.