Nevada committee hears bill to require court‑approved discharge plans, limit transfers to temporary shelters

The Assembly Health and Human Services Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 306, a bill that would require written, court‑approved discharge plans for children leaving inpatient psychiatric facilities and bar discharging a child to a temporary emergency shelter unless a child‑welfare agency approves the placement.

Supporters told the committee the change is aimed at preventing children with acute mental‑health needs from being stepped down into temporary shelters such as Childhaven, which are licensed as daycare centers and not equipped for acute psychiatric stabilization. “Childhaven is an emergency shelter for abused and neglected children ages 0 to 18,” Nicole Miller, a 20‑year Clark County Family Services employee, said in testimony. “Our temporary shelter…can't provide the services children need for stabilization and mental health care.”

The bill would also require that children ordered to residential treatment be placed in an appropriate facility no later than 30 days after receipt of the court order, a change proponents said would replace the current pattern in which children can wait months for a bed. “If we put a timeline in here and hold accountability to what we need for children in our state, we'll make things happen for them,” Bridget Duffy, assistant district attorney in Clark County's juvenile division, told the committee.

Why it matters: Witnesses, including family‑services workers, union leaders and county officials, said children are being discharged from higher‑level treatment into settings that cannot meet their medical or psychiatric needs, disrupting care and creating safety risks for other children and staff. Testimony described cases in which children returned from hospitals to temporary shelters without medication management or one‑to‑one supports.

Opponents and neutral commenters raised concerns about capacity, timelines and legal exposure. Marla McDade Williams, administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), told the committee that the bill's prohibition on discharge to temporary facilities and the court‑approval requirement “would significantly complicate and delay the discharge process” in cases of parental conflict or absent guardianship and could leave clinically ready children hospitalized longer than clinically necessary. Teresa Benitez‑Thompson from the Office of the Attorney General noted a 2025 settlement between Nevada and the U.S. Department of Justice addressing unnecessary institutionalization of children under the Americans with Disabilities Act and said the bill could risk prolonging institutional stays if it prevents timely step‑down to appropriate community placements.

Discussion and clarifications focused on whether the problem is mainly lack of beds or process failures, and whether the 30‑day placement deadline is feasible. Clark County witnesses and proponents acknowledged there are capacity shortfalls and said the bill is intended to create accountability and spur system changes, while DCFS and the AG's office warned that without a concurrent capacity build‑out the state could face court sanctions or longer institutional stays.

No final committee vote was recorded during the hearing. The bill sponsor and supporters said they will continue discussions with state agencies to resolve implementation and compliance concerns.

The hearing included extensive public testimony in support from county officials, service providers, unions and advocacy groups; neutral commentary from DCFS and the Attorney General's Office; and exchanges among committee members, counsel and witnesses on statutory references, timelines and operational constraints.

Looking ahead: Sponsors asked the committee to consider the bill as a policy choice about what Nevada wants for children and families while acknowledging the need to coordinate with DCFS and federal compliance work.