Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protection Legal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let Nevada mandated reporters seek attorneys’ fees if sued over child-abuse reports
Summary
Senate Bill 409 would add fee-shifting language to Nevada statute for mandated reporters who prevail in lawsuits stemming from reports or assistance in child-abuse investigations, aligning Nevada with federal CAPTA provisions that allow prevailing defendants to recover fees and costs.
The Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 409, which would revise state law governing reporting and investigation of child abuse or neglect to allow mandated reporters who prevail in civil actions related to reports or assistance to seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Supporters said the change is intended to encourage medical providers and other mandated reporters to provide medical opinions and information in child-abuse cases without fear of unrecoverable litigation costs.
Amity Latham, a chief deputy district attorney who practices in child welfare for the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, presented the bill and told the committee that medical opinions are often essential in court to distinguish injuries caused by abuse from medical conditions that can mimic abuse. Latham said some medical professionals are reluctant to provide those opinions because of potential liability and the financial burden of defending lawsuits, even when statutes presume reports are made in good faith.
Latham said the bill would bring Nevada into alignment with the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) as amended by the Victims of Child Abuse Reauthorization Act of 2018 by adding a state-level provision that allows prevailing mandated reporters to ask the court for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Latham said Nevada has long protected mandated reporters with a statutory presumption of good faith (NRS 432B.160) but currently lacks the fee-shifting language present in federal law. She said the proposed change would extend fee-shifting to mandated reporters (not to any defendant) and that, if enacted, the provision should make medical professionals more comfortable providing opinions and assistance in child-welfare investigations.
Maximilian Lowe testified in support of the bill, saying as a person who receives services he supports protections for those who make good-faith determinations. No opposition or neutral testimony was recorded. The committee opened and closed the hearing with no recorded vote.
If enacted, the bill would add to Nevada law the ability for mandated reporters who prevail in suits related to reporting or assistance in child-abuse investigations to seek an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Proponents said that change would address provider reluctance and strengthen the state’s ability to obtain medical opinions necessary for child-protection and—where applicable—criminal proceedings.
