Assembly panel hears AB344 to change child‑welfare court terms and attorney pay, and to clarify transfers of cases

Assemblymember Elaine Marzola introduced Assembly Bill 344 before the Nevada Assembly Judiciary Committee, saying the measure seeks to “modernize and improve various aspects of our judicial process with a particular focus on child welfare proceedings and the appointment of attorneys in certain cases.”

The bill would change terminology in child‑welfare statutes — most prominently replacing the term “master” with “judicial officer” — respond to requests from children and judges, and adjust how jurisdictions pay attorneys who represent parents in child‑welfare cases. Kelly Brandon, supervising deputy district attorney in Carson City and chair of the Court Improvement Project legislative subcommittee, told the committee the change responds to children’s questions about the word “master” and that other states have made similar changes.

The bill also seeks to align attorney pay for parents in child‑welfare cases with criminal pay scales to improve recruitment and retention. "Attorneys were telling local jurisdictions, ‘why would I take a child welfare case that's more complicated ... for less pay,’" Brandon said, explaining the proposal would fund counsel in typical child‑welfare cases at misdemeanor rates and in termination proceedings at felony rates. Brandon told the committee the change also clarifies that jurisdictions should pay attorneys for work outside the courtroom — such as child and family team meetings and mediations — because much of the representation occurs in those settings.

Another portion would clarify inter‑jurisdictional transfers within Nevada. Brandon described Section 27 as allowing courts to move proceedings between jurisdictions inside the state so children can remain in their schools and placements when appropriate. The amendments would make explicit that parties entitled to notice at a joint hearing must be heard, and would require courts to consider whether a child’s receiving jurisdiction can continue services the child already receives.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about who decides whether an attorney may withdraw based on a client breakdown. Brandon said the court would make that determination based on information from the attorney and the client. She described cases in which frequent attorney turnover left jurisdictions without counsel for parents.

Supporters who spoke included John McCormick, assistant court administrator at the Nevada Supreme Court, who said he supports removing the term “master” from statute, and representatives of the Washoe County Alternate Public Defender’s Office who said they back the bill and the proposed amendment.

No members of the public spoke in opposition. The committee closed the hearing after testimony and questions; no vote on final passage was taken during the session.

Ending: The committee heard technical and practice‑oriented changes to the child‑welfare statutes in AB344 and received support from court administrators and defenders; the bill will move forward through the legislative process for further consideration and amendment.