AB387 would update Nevada minor guardianship law to expand attorney access and emergency tools, sponsors say

Assemblymember Nathana Anderson presented Assembly Bill 387 to the Senate Judiciary Committee with testimony from legal-service providers, judges and court staff that the bill updates Nevada’s minor guardianship statutes to better protect children and clarify processes for families and caregivers.

AB387 would revise NRS 159A in multiple ways, sponsors said: simplify alternative service rules so petitions are not denied for technical service defects; require petitioners to provide basic information in the petition (such as prior child-welfare findings and a plan to meet the child's needs); set best-interest factors for courts considering guardianship; clarify and expand when an attorney should be appointed to represent a child; permit emergency hearings and temporary guardianships in medically urgent situations; and revise estate-related rules to allow a guardian discretion to use a child’s funds for the child’s best interests.

Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers and Marina Dahlia Hunt of the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, who have represented thousands of children in guardianship proceedings, described how the current law can leave children in limbo while petitions are delayed for service or documentation errors. Hunt described two medical examples to the committee: a child with severe kidney failure whose grandparents could not obtain imaging or care because hospitals and imaging providers required legal authority, and a child with Down syndrome whose severe dental decay went untreated because a dentist would not operate without legal guardianship. Hunt said those children “ended up in foster care” while paperwork issues were resolved.

On the question of poverty and parental rights, committee members pressed sponsors to ensure the law does not penalize low-income parents. When Senator Krasner asked whether the statute’s language about a parent being ‘unable to provide basic needs’ risked removing children from families who rely on public benefits, Hunt replied, “No. So access to medical care would be more along the lines of the example that I provided… Relying on Medicaid does not mean that a parent needs a guardian.” Sponsors and proponents emphasized that the bill preserves the constitutional presumption that a parent is fit and that guardianship is intended primarily to avoid foster-care entries when relatives can safely provide care.

AB387 also seeks to make clear that children should have access to counsel: the bill clarifies preference for appointment of an attorney for minors and defines the role of guardians ad litem and best-interest attorneys. It changes the standard for terminating a guardianship to focus on current circumstances and the child's best interest, rather than a punitive standard based on past parental conduct.

Supporters included the Children’s Advocacy Alliance and the Nevada Supreme Court’s Guardianship Commission; John McCormick of the Supreme Court’s administrative office noted the court’s support following stakeholder-driven drafting. Several committee members praised the bill’s child-centered reforms while asking for clarifications and for guardrails to ensure low-income parents are not disadvantaged.

The committee took testimony and closed the public hearing on AB387; no committee vote was recorded at the hearing.

Ending: The hearing closed after testimony; sponsors said they will continue to refine the bill language with stakeholders and the Guardianship Commission.