John McCormick, assistant court administrator for the Nevada Supreme Court, presented Assembly Bill 65 to the Assembly Judiciary Committee, describing the bill as the next step in a multi-year effort to modernize guardianship statutes and reduce previously documented abuses. The hearing was held in Carson City with participants from Las Vegas and callers on the public line.

McCormick said the bill would broaden the statutory duties of guardianship investigators to include assessing a proposed protected person's ability to care for themselves, locating relatives, and obtaining vital records such as birth and death certificates; the draft also referenced authorization for investigators to conduct fingerprint background checks, language McCormick said the sponsor intends to remove and instead route to the Guardianship Commission for policy development. "It is our intent in this bill ... to remove this section and have the Guardianship Commission thoroughly vet the process," McCormick said. Section 3 would remove "compliance" from the name of the Administrative Office of the Courts' Guardianship Compliance Office to avoid giving the wrong impression that the office oversees courts or guardians.

Other provisions explained by McCormick include removing the statutory cap on staffing for the guardianship office (replacing the cap with staffing up to legislative appropriations), conforming special immigrant juvenile guardianship language into chapter 159A, adding alternate methods of service consistent with Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure, allowing a protected minor to extend guardianship past age 21 if desired, and setting an effective date of July 1, 2025.

Support came from Catherine Nielsen of the Nevada Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities and Shauna Brennan, counsel for the Rights of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities (ADFD), both of whom said they supported statutory changes to strengthen due process and protections for people with disabilities. Several practitioners and advocates flagged outstanding concerns. Jonathan Norman of the Nevada Coalition of Legal Service Providers said his group represents many proposed protected persons and is working with sponsors but remains in formal opposition until amendments resolve specific items; he called out an item that would require certain notices to be sent seven days before a hearing, saying that would disadvantage pro se litigants who sometimes get notice the same day. Practicing guardianship attorneys including Melissa Exline echoed support for the bill's goals but emphasized that investigators' reports should be made available sufficiently in advance so parties and counsel can prepare.

Sponsors and stakeholders told the committee they were actively negotiating amendments, including removing fingerprinting language from the bill text and refining service/notice provisions, and asked for additional work on technical language before the work session. The committee took testimony and closed the hearing; no committee vote occurred that day.