Thread by @woodrumlaw

Guardianship Commission called to order. Justice Hardesty thanking Sharon Coates for admin support, Dania Reid and John Michaelson regarding the rules, Hank Cavallera and myself for mediation materials, & Mallory Nelson and Riley Wilson for reporting data. Roll called as well.

Hearing from Mallory Nelson at the 2nd Judicial District Court about latest Guardianship reporting numbers. Under age 30 represents over 30% of the caseload which is concerning and highlights the need for Supported Decision Making efforts as children near age 18.

Questions being asked about the "court appointed attorney not defined" statistic - response is that Washoe Legal is appointed in a broad way and then the specific attorney appears so that would account for that data point. Questions also about restoration of capacity data.

Clark County numbers now (8th Judicial District). Starting to be able to compare the data more directly with this format.

Another argument for supported decision making in Nevada (BDR 164 if you're following #nvleg) would be the data on how many young adults are going into guardianships who could be eligible for less restrictive options.

Note that Clark County information is on a random sampling while the Washoe County numbers are reflective of the entire body of cases. Their case management system is more capable of generating that information. Clark County is having to make manual entries (hence 10% sample).

Justice Hardesty noting the compliance issues in minor guardianships - asking Judge Ochoa about steps taken to deal with that. Judge Ochoa saying he and Judge Potter have received the minor cases about 30 days ago and they are working through a lot of the older cases.

Kate McCloskey reporting on recorder fee revenue and filing fee revenue distribution across the state.

When the Northern Compliance Financial Forensic Specialist was calling to try to get the data on funds they found that they had to talk to multiple people in the counties to get down to what needed to be asked.

James Conway from Washoe Legal sharing that in Lyon County they have a contract for child advocacy services but the structure is that the court distributes funds to different providers for services there. Their adult guardianship work is funded through grants mainly in Lyon.

Ms. McCloskey sharing that Lincoln county is sending funds to State DCFS with the State and the State Controller is sending those funds to transition from foster care and victims of domestic violence instead so there is confusion about these funds and the law.

Justice Hardesty highlighting Nye, Churchill and others where individual attorneys are getting funds to represent protected persons instead of funds going to legal aid attorneys. Ms. McCloskey stating Nye clarified funds are going to Nevada Legal Services.

James Conway stating that Nevada Legal Services is reporting they are *not* receiving any of this funding, Justice Hardesty indicating his understanding is the same so for the counties to report otherwise raises questions about where the funds actually are.

Barbara Buckley pointing out an error on the Clark County reporting (the report states $1,220,262.00 collected on the adult side and $610,130.00 for minor investigations) but the children's side they are collecting only $5 and not $6 instead. Also no funds going to Senior Law.

Lora Myles sharing that she has several cases in the 11th District (Lander, Mineral, Pershing), stating that it is a matter of trying to find attorneys without conflicts of interest to go out there. Sharing Elko is appointing Nevada Legal Svcs.

Debra Amens sharing in Lander and Pershing the Public Defender is often being appointed for protected person representation - depends on who is available and whether there is a conflict. James Conway indicating ability to cover Pershing, Churchill, and Humboldt if funded.

Mick Keane asking about how units of service are calculated on representation contracts statewide, among other concerns. Justice Hardesty: report would suggest outside of the urban counties and maybe Elko and Douglas, the oversight is problematic here.

On to the Rules Subcommittee information with Dania Reid (Washoe County Deputy DA in the North) and John Michaelson (private attorney in the South). Justice Hardesty asking which rules have unanimous support. All on agenda except 11 (GAL) and 12 (Counsel for Protected Persons).

My thought: Rule 14 is contested as well, going to add that to the discussion.

Justice Hardesty sharing that NRCP is changing with some day count rules for conflicts there in response to a concern from Mick Keane about counting days.

John Michaelson asking about publication service and Justice Hardesty indicating it will exist in the rule in NRCP but will no longer be the default position. New affidavit showings to be required with findings.

Rules 9 (Noticing), 10 (Attorney Fee Petitions and Payments), 23 (Status Hearings After Establishment of Guardianship), and 24 (Operating Accounts and Bonds) passed unanimously just now. On to looking at Rule 11 regarding GALs. Passed unanimously.

On to Rule 12 which was hotly contested in the rules subcommittee. Rule is regarding the role of counsel for the protected person and is five pages long.

Discussion of Model ABA rule 1.14 - belief of Mick Keane that when a protected person can no longer communicate the attorney should disclose the circumstances and represent on due process and rights but suggest a GAL appointment. Request from him that it be mandatory.

Per Mr. Keane, the subcommittee gave that as an option instead of a mandate regarding referral to GAL - an issue of debate with a lot of input. Justice Hardesty highlighting subsection 4(b) redline versus the language in subsection 9.

Discussion has been fast moving but the tension is between mandating behavior from protected person's counsel and making things permissive. I'm in the permissive camp because guidance is one thing but case by case there's danger of turning counsel into a best interests advocate.

Jennifer Richards pointing out that there is similarity to counsel in civil commitment and the fact that we don't question the attorneys in those cases about what they advocate on behalf of their clients. Highlighting Jennifer Rains on the commission in civil commitment cases.

Going to a roll call vote. Justice Hardesty abstaining. 14 to 2 it passes. For: Debra Amens, Jim Berchtold, Elizabeth Brickfield, Hank Cavallera, Lynda Hascheff, Lynne Hughes, Mick Keane, Karen Kelly, Judge Ochoa, Jennifer Rains, (cont.)

For (cont.): Dania Reid, Jennifer Richards, Jennifer Salem, Homa Woodrum

Against: John Michaelson, Shelly Register

On to Rule 14. I spoke to the desperate need for a rule requiring judges to address rights of the protected person if they are curbing the guardian's authority. I assisted in the rule but it was drafted by the 2nd's Mallory Nelson.

Karen Kelly commenting - question about the investigation of the welfare of individuals - uncertainty of where that comes from because the rule asks for the public guardian to be appointed as temporary guardian. She doesn't want appointment of individuals at an unknown location.

Karen Kelly asking that appointment only happens if the location of the protected person is known.

Justice Hardesty indicating that the language already speaks to specifics on the issue of location so he doesn't believe the Public Guardian would be appointed until investigation about location is done. Hank Cavallera indicating he was initially against the rule, now in support.

Hank saying he sees now that there's an Americans With Disabilities Act tie here that makes Rule 14 mandatory for the benefit of these individuals.

James Conway asking that if the court were to order an investigation and they can't find the parties, can court terminate? Justice Hardesty indicating he believes the court would still have that authority, we don't want to track if we can't find individuals.

Mick Keane sharing his concern that section a and section c could be read to allow termination of the guardianship without a petition and citation and other due process. Justice Hardesty feeling that the temporary guardianship would be a distinction. Dania Reid echoing Mick.

Dania Reid sharing frustration at being appointed after the fact of appointment as counsel for the Washoe County Public Guardian. There are due process concerns. Suggestion to reference statutes on notice/etc. Asking for vote on this amendment.

In Las Vegas 6 in favor, 3 opposed to amendment. In Carson 3 in favor, 1 opposed. Numerous abstentions.

Judge Ochoa concerned about fiscal consequences on investigations. Justice Hardesty acknowledging and appreciating that.

My question about who is noticing the public guardian was responded to - the court would notice. Dania Reid sharing that often the PG comes in as investigator and then becomes appointed but everyone has notice in that circumstance. Worthwhile process per Ms. Reid and Mr. Conway.

Karen Kelly sharing she feels it is a conflict to investigate at all as Public Guardian and make recommendations to the court about guardianship appointment. Also citing fiscal impact. Justice Hardesty asking that the courts use Kate McCloskey's team instead of the PG.

Mallory Nelson indicating in the 2nd they verify the circumstances of an out of age minor guardianship instead of just terminating. In the South, if there's no money involved they will terminate based on age.

Barbara Buckley sharing regarding minor guardianship that she would still like to expand the role for her attorneys in guardianship actions related to minors. Indicating ongoing information collection in this area.

Rule 14 with conceptual amendment requiring notice to the Public Guardian regarding appointment as temporary guardianship. Taking a Roll Call Vote. Hardesty and Sturman abstaining, unanimous passage otherwise.

Future rules to be included feature local rule reconciliation work I've submitted to the subcommittee. Rules consideration closed right now, Justice Hardesty getting these latest rules to the Supreme Court before the end of the year for a hearing. Possibility of January though.

On to item 6 - BDR from the courts in guardianship. Judge Sturman sharing concern that Advance Practice Nurses are signing physician's certificates which is not allowed under statute right now.

Some history being offered regarding why APNs were not allowed by prior legislatures and the prior commission.

John Michaelson proposing and Judge Sturman seconding proposal to allow APNs to complete physician's certificate for a plenary guardianship (could be used in a temporary guardianship already).

Motion defeated. On to question of the concept of a standby limited guardian like Washington has in the event a guardian passes away and a person continues to need assistance so there is no interruption of assistance. Moved by me and seconded by Jennifer Richards.

Elizabeth Brickfield feels this would be in conflict with the statute regarding choice of other families who may want to step in after one guardian is gone.

Justice Hardesty appreciating the point of Ms. Brickfield, concern that a guardian would appoint someone who would be out of the line of succession in statute. What if the standby was within that line of succession? Part of the problem would be court wanting to evaluate that.

Justice Hardesty wants motion withdrawn. Withdrawn. On to item C, Karen Kelly's request regarding provisions on change of location of protected person. And now 6(e) redline form John Michaelson (article V of uniform gship).

Possible analogy to a probate set aside but for guardianship so people can get authority as an alternative to guardianship but the comments make it sound very close to a temporary guardianship.

Mick Keane suggesting a chance to craft a remedy for limited authority within guardianship instead of creating a new sort of status.

Discussion ongoing about how the uniform act could fit in with Nevada. LACSN sharing that the statute as proposed feels like guardianship - still delegating authority. Devil would be in the details per Jim Berchtold.

Jennifer Richards sharing that special limited guardianship is already an option for courts. Dania Reid sharing that it sounds like guardianship and NRS 159 already requires least restrictive guardianship. Wondering where it fits in supported decision making.

Dania Reid: these are invasive duties, concerning that there isn't the same oversight and process for this. Judge Sturman sharing interest in this because of persons without family or functional family and the person may be physically unable to do something but has capacity.

I shared the upcoming effort to roll out Adult Protective Services in Nevada for wraparound social services and supports for 18 and up while preserving independence and asked whether that would change the desire for this framework or not based on community needs being met.

Mick Keane suggesting a subcommittee to look at this subject. Moving on.

Discussion of missing jurisdiction transfer information in 159A (minors). Mick Keane asking if 159 controls where 159A is silent. Justice Hardesty believes that is correct. Plan to refer to the rules subcommittee on that issue. James Conway suggesting a form to address this.

Concern focused on the lack of a UCCJEA callback from NRS 159A in reciprocity. Possible further discussion offline.

On to 6(j) (Hank and I worked on some mediation rules/handbook for alternatives to resolve guardianship disputes.

Suggestion of notice of fees in mediation within the rule structure so consumers know what they're getting into. Hank walking through the proposed handbook draft. Believes the ADA requires mediation here because it is offered in cases involving persons with disabilities.

Manual is based on the Alaska system, purported to be a model that lays out everything in this area. It (1) requires training for mediators (2) requires counsel for the protected person to be present (create fairness in the process and balance power) (3) addresses capacity

(4) looks at abuse, neglect, etc. (5) mediator qualifications (6) dispute options related to the mediation offerings, idea of guardianship compliance to look at disputes

Jennifer Richards voicing support. Judge Sturman suggesting contact with the ADR section of the state bar since they are very active. Hank sharing that he had not - sharing also the next steps may be to share awareness across the state and recruit mediators.

Justice Hardesty sharing that having gone through the foreclosure mediation program he has a lot of confidence people would educate themselves and sign up for it. Recalling almost 300 mediation appointments and special training was involved there as well. Not worried.

Debra Amends moved to approve manual, Shelly Register seconds. One vote against, Judge Sturman wants discussion with ADR section. Will ensure presentation to the section and moving the rule to rules committee to consider.

On to 6(l), proposal of change to NRS 159.0535. Proposition that the attorney for the protected person be used to elicit the view on the proposed guardianship versus in the old statute there's another person filling out a form without counsel involvement.

Mick Keane suggesting that rule 12 would have a comment to reflect this change if it passed. Jennifer Richards is amenable to the same but it would be premature per Justice Hardesty related to the adoption of the statute.

James Conway asking if there should be a (c) where the protected person is required to attend unless their appearance is waived through their attorney. Some individuals do not want to attend court. Legal Aid in the south is in agreement.

Question about application to minors. Don't know if there is a similar provision in 159A. If there's an issue, can't compare since counsel is not guaranteed for minors at this point in guardianship. And no physician's certificate required in a minor case.

On to item 7, Jennifer Rains was tasked with bringing more information about Assisted Outpatient Treatment. Looking for ways to address a specific need that might not require a guardianship.

The Regional Board went with a different proposal regarding crisis triage centers so there was no request for resources on AOT in that BDR that they had. Judge Liu and Master Yeager contributed some feedback to her.

Question that comes to the commission is that these resources may be available to families but somehow barred because of lack of capacity. Funded spots in Clark used by mainly criminally based cases. Washoe funding is shaky on a grant with spots being used already.

Judge Sturman sharing 100% support of a specialty program from Master Yeager and the Chief Judge but the word is "don't take our beds" and they have only 70 beds to serve over 2,000 people who are in jail and need those resources.

The data on Assisted Outpatient Treatment is really persuasive

@threadreaderapp unroll