LAS VEGAS — A bill being considered by the Nevada Legislature aims to close family court hearings to increase privacy, but opponents say it is unnecessary legislation that could hinder transparency of elected officials and harm people who can’t afford an attorney.

Senate Bill 432, sponsored by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, sets guidance for family courts on the sealing and opening of records and authorizes a judge to exercise their discretion on closing a hearing if it serves a “compelling interest.”

The bill would make an electronic record of a private hearing confidential and not open to the public unless a judge determines public interest outweighs privacy. Distributing or publishing a record could result in a category D felony punishable by between one to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Privacy is a fundamental right and a component of the right to personal liberty established in the Nevada Constitution, said Nevada family law attorney Marshal Willick, who presented the bill Wednesday.

“The right of privacy in parentage, custody and divorce matters has been woven into Nevada law since the founding of this state, and it’s been reaffirmed in legislative enactments and court decisions repeatedly since then,” he said during the hearing.

But opponents say the bill is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” purporting to protect people’s privacy when in reality judges already take measures to protect the privacy of people in family courts, which handle divorce, child custody, adoption, abuse and neglect cases.

“Existing law already allows courts to exercise their discretion to ensure that private information that shouldn’t be public … can be sealed and shielded from public view. We don’t need a bill to do that,” said Maggie McLetchie, an attorney and member of the Nevada Open Government Coalition.

What exactly does this mean?

In 2024, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a law requiring the court in a divorce case to close proceedings at the request of the parties is unconstitutional because it didn’t permit the court to exercise its discretion on whether a closure was warranted.

One section of the bill repeals that law as well as provides guidance to courts on sealing or opening records and hearings.

Court proceedings are presumed to be open, but the bill lists factors a court can use to determine whether to close the hearing. That includes the interest of the party and child in the case, if they will suffer harassment, embarrassment, shame or harm, Willick said during a Senate Committee on Judiciary hearing.

The court could seal or redact a court record that is presumed to be open if the judge decides the sealing is justified by a compelling interest that outweighs the public interest in access, such as protecting personal identifying information concerning a party or child, Willick said.

In family law proceedings, a swath of documents would be made confidential, including financial disclosure forms, child custody evaluations and medical records, according to the bill’s text. A judge could determine to open them up if there’s a good cause.

Hiding misconduct?

Opponents argue that the bill’s provisions could be used to shield misconduct in courtrooms.

Tia Smith, a policy attorney with ACLU of Nevada, said during the hearing that the bill risks limiting public access in a way that will lessen accountability. It gives broad discretion to close proceedings based on subjective standards like reputational harm and emotional discomfort, Smith said.

Without clear limits, those standards “could be misused to shield misconduct or unfair outcomes from public scrutiny,” she said.

Family court judges — like other judges in Nevada — are elected, McLetchie told the Review-Journal. The bill could limit the public’s ability to assess the work of those elected judges, she said.

Judges are already capable of restricting information when they deem necessary, according to Alex Falconi, founding director of Our Nevada Judges, an organization that educates the public on the Nevada Judiciary and tracks judges’ decisions.

“Treating family law cases differently than other criminal and civil cases is the first step in the wrong direction,” he said in his written testimony. “The public has an interest in the operation of all of our courts, including family court.”

Another concern is the ability to ensure fairness for parties in family court who can’t afford their own attorney. While people are guaranteed access to an attorney in criminal cases, the same isn’t true in family court, McLetchie said.

Sometimes a person has to go up against attorneys on the other side, and because the historical treatment of family court is secret, they’re not able to get access to the same types of information as the attorney, McLetchie said.

The proposed penalty is also extremely broad, McLetchie said, and a “thinly disguised effort to be able to punish people who share information about family court.”

If someone publishes any personal-identifying information about people who are part of a protective order, even if they’re unaware of the protective order, they could be punished, McLetchie said. Journalists who get access to leaked documents could also be punished, she said.

“What happens in the courts is the public’s business,” McLetchie said. “It’s (the judge’s) job to balance that with any need or privacy protection.”

Public interest in personal cases?

Media outlets cover criminal court proceedings more often than family court proceedings, but there’s been an increased public interest in family court operations, Falconi said. Judges have determined if public interest calls for allowing coverage of the proceedings, he wrote in his testimony.

For instance, defense and family law attorney Gary Guymon was accused of pimping his clients and solicitation of murder. Justices allowed comprehensive electronic coverage of the proceedings, which are ongoing.

In another case, after divorce lawyer Joe Houston shot dead his son’s ex wife and opposing counsel Dennis Prince, family court judges allowed for comprehensive electronic coverage of the proceedings, according to Falconi.

Reno resident Beth Smith, who is president of the Washoe County School District Board of Trustees, said the public had no business viewing her own family court proceeding, which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Nevada Supreme Court decision in 2024.

“The public was allowed into our family court case,” she told the Review-Journal. “It was absolutely devastating. It was a huge violation.”

Her hearing was recorded, and any member of the public was able to come in and watch the hearing, Beth Smith said.

Smith said that her case was not publicized because of her role in the community and that many other family court cases have been recorded and are available online.

“It affected me for sure, but the person who was really harmed by this, and the person that the case really centered around, was my child,” she said. “It has no bearing whatsoever about what it is that I do for work or how it is that I serve. The public has no interest in the sensitive matters of my child.”

___

©2025 Las Vegas Review-Journal. Visit reviewjournal.com.. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.