Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Background Checks Adoption Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
AB 520 would authorize criminal background checks for child‑placing agency directors and broaden adoption registry access; billers seek technical fixes with DPS
Summary
AB 520 would codify authority to fingerprint and background‑check directors of licensed child‑placing agencies, allow limited release of adoption records to relatives, and permit remote attendance at adoption hearings; sponsors seek technical edits to align with FBI/DPS rules and noted a fee provision triggers a two‑thirds vote threshold.
Assembly Bill 520 would move provisions currently in the Nevada Administrative Code into statute to allow the Division of Child and Family Services to perform criminal background checks on directors of child‑placing agencies, permit limited release of adoption registry information to biological relatives, and authorize prospective adoptive parents to attend court hearings by video or telephone.
Marla McDade Williams, Administrator of the Division of Child and Family Services, said the bill codifies existing administrative practice and seeks explicit statutory authority to conduct background checks that meet FBI fingerprinting standards. "Criminal background checks are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Safety and we had been unable to...compel a criminal background check and meet the FBI's compliance," Williams said, adding staff would meet with DPS and bill drafters to resolve technical issues.
LCB legal counsel David Noss told the committee that section 2, subsection 2 authorizes the division to charge applicants for fingerprinting fees; because the bill creates a new fee that increases state revenue, it triggers a two‑thirds requirement for passage. Williams told members the division currently performs background checks and does not charge for them; the proposed language would allow recovery of fingerprinting costs.
Lorena Biasadi testified in support on her own behalf, saying she did not understand why the provisions were not already statutory and urging the committee to adopt the change.
Committee members raised no further substantive opposition on the record. Sponsors said they would continue to work with Department of Public Safety on technical compliance language; the hearing was closed without a committee vote.
