Revises provisions relating to the judiciary. (BDR 38-155)
AB 344 makes a broad set of changes to Nevada law affecting judicial titles, child welfare proceedings, child support enforcement, guardianship, and related court procedures. A central feature of the bill is replacing the term “master” with “judicial officer” in numerous statutes governing family court, juvenile court, justice court, municipal court, paternity, support, and protective-order proceedings. The bill also authorizes courts to use different local titles for these positions so long as the title does not include “master,” while preserving the duties, authority, and protections associated with the role.
The bill also creates a new in-state transfer process for child welfare cases. Under that process, an originating court and a receiving court must hold a joint hearing and both determine that transfer is in the child’s best interests before a case may be moved to another court within Nevada. The bill sets out factors for the courts to consider, limits off-the-record communication about the merits of the case, and requires transfer of child welfare agency responsibilities when the receiving court accepts the case.
AB 344 significantly revises representation and compensation rules in child welfare and parental-rights proceedings. It expands when parents or other responsible persons may be represented by counsel, requires appointment of counsel for indigent parents in certain child protection cases, and allows appointment of counsel for some non-alleged responsible persons when that is in the child’s best interest. It also increases compensation for appointed attorneys in child welfare and termination-of-parental-rights matters by tying payment to misdemeanor or felony defense rates rather than the lower existing benchmark.
The bill further updates child support enforcement procedures by preserving the judicial officer’s role in hearings, recommendations, paternity determinations, enforcement actions, and license-suspension processes. It also revises several related statutes involving evidence, privileges, juvenile proceedings, guardianship, emancipation, and confidentiality protections for court personnel. Several provisions are delayed until July 1, 2026, and the bill includes a grandfather clause stating that the new attorney-compensation rules do not apply to proceedings begun before January 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial: the Assembly passed the bill 41-0 and the Senate passed it 21-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition. Based on the unanimous votes, the bill appears to have had broad bipartisan support, with any likely concerns centered more on implementation details—especially the title change, child welfare transfer process, and increased attorney compensation—than on the bill’s overall direction.
AB 344 amends a wide range of Nevada Revised Statutes, especially chapters governing family law, child support, juvenile justice, child welfare, guardianship, and court administration. It replaces references to “master” with “judicial officer” across many provisions, updates definitions, and authorizes courts to use alternate titles that do not include the term “master.” It also creates a new intrastate transfer mechanism for child welfare cases, expands appointment and compensation rules for attorneys in child welfare and parental-rights matters, and adjusts procedures for hearings, evidence, and enforcement in support and paternity cases. The bill affects courts, child welfare agencies, parents, children, appointed counsel, and support-enforcement agencies, and it takes effect for most purposes on July 1, 2026.
The bill appears to have enjoyed very strong support. It passed the Assembly unanimously and the Senate unanimously, and no committee discussion was provided showing organized opposition. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a technical but meaningful modernization of court terminology and child welfare procedures, along with a policy choice to strengthen legal representation in sensitive family and child protection cases.
No specific opposition is documented in the provided materials, but the bill’s most likely points of contention are identifiable from its substance. The title change from “master” to “judicial officer” could raise administrative or local-practice concerns in courts that use different titles, while the new child welfare transfer process may prompt questions about judicial discretion, agency coordination, and the “best interests of the child” standard. The increased compensation for appointed attorneys may also be debated because it raises public costs, though the bill’s unanimous passage suggests these issues did not generate significant resistance in the Legislature.