Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee hears emotional testimony on SB275 to restrict 'reunification' practices in custody cases

Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro on Friday opened a hearing of the Nevada Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Senate Bill 275, which would revise state law governing child custody proceedings when allegations of domestic violence or child abuse are involved.

Supporters told the committee the measure is intended to prevent courts from ordering extreme or unproven "reunification" programs that separate children from the parent they prefer and place them in high-risk therapeutic settings. Opponents — including family-law practitioners, public defenders and some parents — urged edits to the bill's wording on who may be considered an expert, how courts should treat arrests and allegations, and the bill's scope to avoid unintended consequences.

SB275 would adopt limits and procedures modeled on provisions commonly called "Cadence Law" or the Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence Act included in the 2022 reauthorization of the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The bill's sponsor told the committee the proposal would (among other changes) define "reunification treatment," restrict when courts may order such treatment, require that experts on domestic violence or child abuse have demonstrated clinical experience, and require training for judges and court personnel who regularly handle custody cases.

"Currently, there is a major flaw in our family law system," said Minh Luong, a witness who identified herself as a protected parent, testifying about her family's experience. "Children are forced into having relationships with both parents after the marriage ends no matter how broken and abusive the relationship is." Luong described a judge-ordered reunification process she said led to physical harm of her children and to court decisions that did not accept medical or psychiatric reports she presented.

Her daughter, who identified herself in the hearing as Hannah Vahey, told the committee: "Thank you for allowing me to share my story so other innocent children won't have to go through what me and my siblings did." Her brother Matthew Vahey testified the children had been isolated and punished during court-ordered treatment and said, "Children in this state are currently being treated worse than prisoners."

Marshall Willick, a family-law practitioner who described long experience litigating such cases, urged the committee to bar extreme "immersion" or out-of-state "reunification camp" programs. "It's programmatic brainwashing intended specifically to cause Stockholm Syndrome in children, and in my experience it screws kids up for life," Willick said, arguing section 5 of SB275 should prohibit that practice.

Danielle Pollack, policy manager at the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, described the federal Cadence provisions as targeting cases with abuse allegations and unreliable expert testimony. "This law was part of the Violence Against Women Act that was reauthorized in 2022," Pollack said, and it seeks to ensure courts consider past evidence of abuse and to limit testimony to appropriately qualified professionals.

Supporters at the hearing included domestic-violence service providers and advocates who said Nevada should adopt the federal model to better protect children. Liz Ortenberger, chief executive officer of SafeNest, told the committee that victims who suffer strangulation are at markedly higher risk of homicide and that courts must recognize those risks. Several parents who testified described long legal fights, claims of forced participation in reunification programs and, in some accounts, physical harm and emotional trauma to children.

Opposition and suggested technical revisions came from a mix of family-law attorneys, public defenders and county representatives. Shelly Cooley, a family-law attorney testifying for the Nevada Justice Association, said the bill's expert-evidence language (section 6) was too narrow and could strain a limited pool of local evaluators and therapists. Cooley and other opponents asked the committee to change language that would block reunification orders based on mere allegation, recommending the statute require a court finding that someone "has engaged in" domestic violence or child abuse rather than relying on unproven claims.

Paloma Guerrero, a lawyer with the Clark County Public Defender's Office, objected to statutory language that would require courts to consider arrests as a listed factor when assessing custody; she warned that arrests often carry no evidentiary threshold and that mandatory consideration of arrests could be unfair in some cases. Washoe County representatives requested a technical clarification to exempt government-initiated termination-of-parental-rights proceedings from the bill's exclusions.

Committee members asked about the prevalence of the programs critics described. Marshall Willick and other witnesses said the extreme out-of-state immersion programs are rare in Nevada but that Nevada judges have on occasion ordered some families to programs in states where those programs operate. Several senators asked whether the bill would change civil evidentiary standards in family court; witnesses said it would not alter the state civil standards (preponderance or clear-and-convincing evidence where applicable) but would require courts to consider prior evidence of abuse, including protection orders, arrests or convictions where admissible.

No committee vote was taken during the hearing. Members and the sponsor indicated substantial agreement on the bill's goal but said they expected further drafting to address concerns about definitions, evidentiary language and the scope of required training. Vice Chair Flores closed the hearing and opened the meeting for general public comment; the committee announced plans for additional drafting and follow-up with stakeholders.

Background and next steps: SB275 incorporates elements of the Cadence provisions intended to make courts more safety-focused in custody cases that involve allegations of domestic violence or child abuse. Committee members and witnesses committed to continuing work on technical edits; the bill's sponsor said she would meet with practitioners and opponents to refine statutory language before any committee vote.