Panel reviews major cleanup of Nevada adoption statutes aimed at simplifying process for families and agencies

Assembly Judiciary Committee members on Thursday heard Assembly Bill 227, a broad reorganization and procedural cleanup of Nevada’s adoption statutes intended to simplify and clarify the adoption process for private families, child welfare cases and interstate placements.

Assemblymember Bridal Miller, sponsor of AB227, said the current adoption chapters are “lengthy, cumbersome, and even financially expensive” and that the bill — drafted with practicing family‑law attorneys and child‑welfare stakeholders — restructures statutes into separate chapters and aligns language across the code to reduce confusion.

What the bill would do

- Chapter reorganization: The bill separates adoption law into clear chapters: a revised private‑adoption chapter (127), a separate chapter for adoptions of children in custody of child‑welfare agencies (127A), and a chapter for the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (127B). - Clarify terms and procedures: Sponsors said the rewrite replaces inconsistent or vague terms (for example, removing the nonstandard word “release”), distinguishes “specific consent” from general relinquishment, and expands statutory definitions (the presenters said definitions increase from a few terms to dozens to provide clarity for courts and practitioners). - Procedural fixes: The bill provides explicit procedural steps that practitioners and judges can follow in the courtroom, closing gaps where judges and attorneys previously relied on unwritten practice or local “custom.” - Sanctions and enforcement: The draft retains criminal penalties for unlawful agency activity such as illegal matching or false advertising by unlicensed facilitators; Clark County public defenders raised a recommended change reducing one proposed felony classification (felony D to felony E) and the sponsor said she will accept that revision.

Sponsor and stakeholder testimony

- Kimberly Surratt, a family‑law attorney who helped draft the bill, said she worked more than a year with stakeholders to align statutory language, address procedural gaps and make separate rules for private and agency adoptions where appropriate. She told the committee the draft is a conceptual amendment returning the text to the form stakeholders previously reviewed and asked for the committee’s input on several technical points. - Brigid Duffy, representing Clark County Family Services, said the proposed new chapter for child‑welfare adoptions would streamline processes for children already in foster care, noting those cases already have judicial oversight and recurring reviews. - Attorneys who practice adoption law, including Melissa Exline and Shelly Cooley, supported the changes and highlighted that current statute language is difficult to interpret and that clearer procedures will reduce inconsistent court rulings and help families finalize adoptions.

Technical and operational points discussed

Committee members asked for a list of substantive (non‑procedural) changes; the sponsor offered to supply a concise list to the committee in writing. Witnesses and the sponsor noted that Nevada currently has relatively few licensed adoption agencies and that regulatory and administrative rules (including social‑worker experience requirements) can make it difficult for agencies to operate or reopen. The sponsor and a representative of Clark County said they had worked with Clark County Public Defender’s Office on classifications and would accept changes recommended by that office regarding penalty classifications.

Outcome and next steps

The committee took testimony and closed the hearing on AB227 with no final vote recorded during the session. Sponsors said they would continue coordination with stakeholders and provide written lists of substantive changes requested by members.

Why this matters

Proponents argued the cleanup will make the statutes readable for attorneys and nonattorneys alike, reduce avoidable litigation over ambiguous procedure, and better protect birth parents’ and adoptive parents’ rights. County child‑welfare officials said clarifying the separate paths for private and agency adoptions will streamline cases for children in foster care.

Ending

The committee indicated it would consider the proposed conceptual amendments and supporting technical edits before any further committee action.