It appears that many of the comments below focus on victims of domestic violence and how HB69 supposedly removes protections for these victims. This is simply not true, and saying so serves as a distractor to what this bill seeks to do in the best interests of all of Virginia's children (as validated by 40+ empirical studies over the last several decades). There is no language in this bill that removes any of the existing and important protections for victims of abuse; these protections are already outlined and cited in the best interest factors and other Virginia statutes. This bill would only apply when children have two competent and willing parents, who want to be involved in their lives. If abuse or neglect are present, this bill would not apply, per the already existing best interest factors. This would have been clear to any of the previous respondents if they had taken the time to read the bill.

Comments Document

Virginia Poverty Law Center opposes HB 69 because it diminishes the longstanding "Best Interests of the Child" factors judges must consider in making custody and visitation arrangements in favor of a parent's arbitrary request for the judge's assurances of "frequent and continuing contact with both parents so as to maximize the amount of time the minor child spends with each parent [...]" Abuser parents could use this provision to continue to manipulate and control a victim-parent. This is a dangerous precedent that unravels longstanding precedent, is unnecessary, removes judicial discretion, and gives an abusive parent carte-blanche in a custody or visitation proceeding.

Comments Document

Members of the House of Delegates Courts of Justice - Subcommittee #2, I request that you vote "No" on HB 69 until the Commonwealth of Virginia passes laws ensuring that a child's safety is the first priority in family court adjudication. A child’s safety should not override a parent’s access to the child. Currently, the law does not provide protection from parents who psychologically, emotionally, or verbally abuse their children. As the mother of a child with disabilities, a domestic violence survivor, and a community advocate, I know firsthand how extremely detrimental these traumas can be for a child. House Concurrent Resolution 72 passed by Congress in 2018 provides excellent data about the impact on children’s safety. Respectfully, I urge a no vote.

Good afternoon members of the House Courts of Justice Civil Subcommittee. On behalf of Virginia’s 67 sexual and domestic violence agencies, the Virginia Action Alliance strongly opposes Delegate Davis' HB 69. Year after year, we stand alongside the Virginia Poverty Law Center, the Family Law Coalition, the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and parenting victims of domestic violence to oppose this unnecessary, confusing, and incredibly harmful bill. Creating a presumption in the code to favor shared parenting time in these volatile and often dangerous relationships communicates to the courts that victim and child safety is not paramount. For victims of domestic violence (who share children in common with their abusers), this change to code would require the courts to more carefully consider and further litigate the grounds for abuse to assure “frequent and continuing contact” with the abusive parent. Essentially, this change would create asymmetry, placing a greater burden on the victim of domestic violence to prove that their abuse is a detriment and/or danger to them and their children and therefore more important than assuring frequent and continuing contact. Ongoing child custody and separation litigation for parenting victims is already incredibly costly, all too lengthy, and traumatic for the non-abusive parent who is fleeing violence. Not only would this proposal serve to dilute and trump factors in determining the best interests of the child, but it would contradict all best available research evidence which consistently tells us that the most important and compelling factors ensuring healthy childhood and family development do not include frequency of time spent with both parents, but rather, the quality of time spent with healthy and non-abusive parents. For more than 25 years, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, nationally recognized public health and family/child development researchers, and domestic violence practitioners across the nation have found this to be true - in research, theory, and praxis. It would be unwise and frankly, dangerous for Virginia to adopt changes to the law, like HB 69, which contradict and undermine national best practices. On behalf of sexual and domestic violence victims all across Virginia, we strongly oppose this bill and we urge you to as well. Thank you.

I say no to these because for the sake of the children mental health after domestic violence/ abuse sometimes the abusive parent continues their abuse after post separation and legal abuse. The children have the right to choose what they need. In an abusive situation the judges should not turn a blind eye to it, they should protect the children since they are the future. Always believe survivors and children to tell the truth.

No!! This is not always the best interest of a child. It can do so much damage to a child.

Dear Delegates: I write in my capacity as a both a board member of the Children's Rights Council (CRC) and also as a licensed Virginia attorney in good standing with 24 years of experience as a family law practitioner in Northern Virginia and previously in Virginia Beach in the early 1990's for another 4.5 years. CRC is a national joint custody advocacy organization founded over thirty years ago. Based on CRC's ongoing review of the substantial body of social science research studying outcomes for children in joint and shared custody compared to children in sole custody over the last forty years, children in joint custody have better outcomes on every measure of child well being studied. Our neighboring jurisdiction of Washington, DC now has had a rebuttable presumption for joint/shared custody for more than twenty years, with good results. Likewise, Texas has had a rebuttable presumption for joint custody ("Joint Managing Conservatorship") which was signed into law by the late Governor Ann Richards and then expanded by Governor George W. Bush. HB 69 is wonderful opportunity for Virginia to join with DC and Texas in establishing a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting which still allows the trier of fact significant flexibility to fashion a parenting schedule with the goal of maximizing each parent's available time with the children without mandating a strict fifty-fifty formula for parenting time. Much as in the District of Columbia, the presumption for maximizing each parent's custodial time in HB 69 does NOT apply where the trier of fact finds material evidence of child abuse or neglect or finds domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence. There are substantial existing protections in Virginia's statutory scheme to protect bona fide victims of DV from their abusers and to protect children. In my experience, there is a high level of awareness on the part of judges, Court personnel, family law attorneys, guardians ad litem and among social workers and mental health professionals involved with domestic cases, all of which serve to significantly reduce actual and potential risks to children and victimized parents from a small minority of abusive parents. The Violence Against Women Act since 1994 also has provided billions of dollars for support services for abused parents and their children and this continues unabated. The well developed and heightened awareness and resources addressing this important issue should give all Delegates a measure of confidence that the proven and demonstrated benefits of shared parenting can be safely ordered in the vast majority of cases where most children have loving, caring, responsible and operating within normal boundaries of parenting behavior. The argument that a small minority of parents seeking shared parenting may have ulterior motives should not be allowed to deny the much greater majority of our State's children all the actual and potential benefits of shared parenting. I urge the Delegates on the Committee and the full House of Delegates and Senators to give children in Virginia the best possible opportunity to enjoy the maximum benefits of fully two fully involved parents whenever possible. HB 69 will be huge step in the right direction for Virginia's children and parents. Our motto at CRC is "The Best Parent Is Both Parents." Please make a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting a reality in Virginia.

To the members of the House of Delegates Courts of Justice - Subcommittee #2, I ask that you vote "no" on HB69 until the Commonwealth of Virginia passes laws that will ensure that children’s safety is the first priority in family court adjudication. Courts being focused on contact with both parent’s neglects to recognize that all parents are not safe for children mentally or physically. The child's right to grow up in a safe and healthy home should out weigh the parents' right to access the child. Current law does not provide protection from parents who psychologically, emotionally, or verbally abuse their children. Coercive Control also needs to be addressed and acknowledge in family court cases. I know from personal experience how seriously detrimental this treatment of a child can be due to the trauma caused in my own children. My daughter is currently suffering from PTSD and various other health issues due to these types of abuses by her father. My son, who is still currently in the system, is also dealing with debilitating issues from the visits and regular contact with his father. The amount of money and time required to be spent to correct and treat these childhood traumas through psychological treatment and medication could be avoided by first evaluating each parent's ability to raise a child in a healthy home. In September 2018, the House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 72, which provides excellent data as to why allowing equal access to children is dangerous. It also lays out ways in which states can work to make child safety the main priority in child custody decisions. I encourage you to thoroughly look into these issues so you can see the need to vote “no” on HB69.

Comments Document

To the members of the House of Delegates Courts of Justice - Subcommittee #2, I request that you vote "no" on HB69 until the Commonwealth of Virginia is able to pass laws that will ensure the child's safety is the first priority in family court adjudication. The child's right to grow up in a safe and healthy home should trump the parents' right to access the child. Current law does not provide protection from parents who psychologically, emotionally, or verbally abuse their children. I know for a fact how seriously detrimental this treatment of a child can be due to the trauma caused in my own childhood by my father and now in my journey to protect my own child from her abusive father. The amount of money and time required to be spent to correct and treat these childhood traumas through psychological treatment and medication could be avoided by first evaluating each parent's ability to raise a child in a healthy home. In September 2018, the House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 72, which provides excellent data as to why allowing equal access to children is dangerous. It also lays out ways in which states can work to make child safety the main priority in child custody decisions. You may find this document, uploaded.

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Available to answer any legal questions.

ChamberRVA opposes this bill. The language of the bill is unclear, but appears to permit one plaintiff to file actions on behalf of multiple other people and then to join those actions together. The bill therefore seems to permit class action lawsuits, which have not been permitted in Virginia. We believe that authorizing class action lawsuits would greatly incentivize filing of lawsuits, and deemphasize the case-specific factual situations that are so critical to the fair administration of justice.

The Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce opposes HB 505 and thanks the subcommittee for its consideration.

Comments Document

Dear Members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As a Virginia resident and former police chief, I am writing to express my support for HB 609. This bill enables citizens to bring lawsuits when their constitutional rights are violated by employees who are not cut out for the job. During my 25 years of service in law enforcement, in addition to being a chief, I served as a patrol officer and as a security forces supervisor with the United States Air Force. I learned that police accountability plays a vital role in building community trust and safety. When there is a lack of police accountability, we lose legitimacy in the eyes of those we serve, making community members less likely to cooperate with us. To restore this trust and strengthen relationships with the communities we serve, we need to prioritize governmental accountability. To prevent and solve a crime, police need community members to cooperate and provide information about what they have witnessed. Folks will only cooperate if they trust us. Trust-building is not an optional, feel-good extracurricular activity for police, it is a core responsibility with a direct link to public safety. The doctrine of sovereign immunity is derived from the federal doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity holds the state and its agencies harmless unless the officer’s action has already been clearly established as a constitutional violation in that court’s jurisdiction. For example, in Jessop v City of Fresno, police officers stole money, and the victims sued. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit on qualified immunity grounds because no previous Ninth Circuit case specifically said that police stealing from plaintiffs is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. When such cases are dismissed, the media firestorm has a devastating impact on public trust in the justice system. Qualified immunity is deeply unpopular. Two-thirds of Americans say that civilians need to have the power to sue police officers in order to hold them accountable for misconduct and excessive use of force, even if that makes police work more difficult. In fact, we believe it will make police work easier by helping us rebuild community trust. Virginia cannot fix a federal issue, but state legislators have proposed legislation that would protect Virginia residents’ constitutional rights through state court. House Bill 609 would prevent the government from escaping responsibility by invoking sovereign immunity. The bill gives Virginians the right to sue the state or local government for harms caused by negligent hiring, supervision, training, or retention. The bottom line is that House Bill 609 would not bring open season upon law enforcement. It would simply allow judges to hear the facts of the most egregious cases, which are currently causing the public perception that police are above the law. By doing so, it would strengthen the ties between police and the people we swore an oath to protect and serve. Thank you for considering this important issue. Chief Rob Reyes (Fmr.) U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Police Department Erie, PA Resident of Westmoreland County, VA

The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police oppose HB 609. Public officials deserve the right to be protected in the performance of their duties, when they are acting reasonably and within law. This is especially important in the case of law enforcement, who are continually asked to make split second decisions that can have life altering impacts. There already exists avenues for civil and criminal recourse when public officials act outside of these guidelines. Passing of this bill will create a liability for jurisdictions that they cannot afford. Professional policing is already quite expensive. This bill will make it impossible for jurisdictions to maintain those standards. The passing of this bill will allow a continuous flow of frivolous lawsuits that will not only impact the courts, but have a chilling effect on the law enforcement profession and its ability to effectively do its job. The profession remains in crisis due to the number of officers who have chosen to leave the profession due to the targeted attacks and negative portrayal throughout the media. Applicant pools have virtually dried up throughout the state, leaving agencies fiercely competing with each other for certified officers. These staffing shortages are greatly impacting service delivery as well as an agencies ability to conduct proactive policing and protect their communities. The damage caused over the past two years will take a decade to correct. Should this bill pass, the profession may never rebound to effective levels. Specific legislation was passed over the past several sessions intended to hold law enforcement more accountable for it actions. The VACP has championed several of these bills, recognizing the need for more professional standards and accountability. This legislation needs time to work to make a difference. Removing immunity for our profession will simply make it impossible to do the job we were hired to do and result in officers hesitating to engage and be proactive, and fearful to act. It will create safety issues and cost lives. It will also be the difference between our ability to attract true servants to the profession over those who don't meet the standards our communities expect. We respectfully ask that you reject this bill in its entirety. Chief Maggie A. DeBoard Herndon Police Department Immediate Past President and Legislative Chair of the VACP

Comments Document

The attached file contains one page of written testimony describing my background and support for HB609 and two excerpts from a recent report issued by the Institute for Justice entitled "50 Shades of Government Immunity" that discuss existing Virginia law.

HB609 - People can then sue for 2nd amendment rights violations for not being able to bring firearms where they could before. People could sue because the city didn't fix a pothole or missed one (simply on accident) and they drove over it and the car needed to be realigned. Way too broad and the working public has to pay for it. Egregious items I can see, but this goes way too far, especially given who decides what is a "right" or "privilege". HB515 - Very much needed. When one acts in self defense and gun rights people work to go after those defending themselves, rather than being stopped from wasting the taxpayers' funds and the drama created in the papers and the ruination of peoples' lives, its time to stop folks using their offices to prosecute their political ideologues enemies.

Indigent persons should have the ability to appeal cases regardless of whether the landlord reports that back rent has not been paid in full. In all other cases, indigent persons may appeal without paying a fee; and the current situation for renters is a denial of their basic right to have the facts of the case looked at. At present, justice is denied to the tenant only on the basis of the landlord's word, which may itself reflect inaccurate or incomplete information. Especially during the pandemic, when the affordable housing market is extremely tight, it is not in the interest of the community for persons to be evicted, particularly without the ability to appeal the case and to present the facts. This bill corrects basic inequity in the current law affecting low-income renters, and encourages community stability.

On behalf of the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations, I write in support of HB614/SB474. This bill rectifies the long-overlooked denial of due process and denial of a right to a jury trial by extending the indigency waiver to all civil litigants, regardless of the type of case. With this bill, low income-tenants who wish to appeal their eviction case can ask the court to waive the appeal bond, thereby granting them full access to review of their case in Circuit Court. Thank you very much for your consideration.

This bill alleviates what is already a burdensome financial situation for many tenants. n civil cases, indigent litigants can have the money bond required to appeal their case waived unless they are appealing an eviction based on nonpayment of rent. These tenants are thus effectively denied their right to seek de novo review of their unlawful detainer case, they do not get access to the more robust pre-trial discovery available only in circuit court, and they are denied their right to a jury trial enshrined in Virginia’s Constitution. The rare tenants who can scrape together the money to pay the appeal bond must also pay ongoing rent into the court on or before the fifth day of the month or their case is summarily dismissed. If the tenant does not pay the full rent into court, upon written motion from the landlord the court must, without a hearing, enter a judgment and an order of possession against the tenant. The court must also release the appeal bond funds to the landlord without further hearing or proceeding of the court unless the tenant files a motion to retain some or all of the funds. Regardless of the merits of the tenant’s claim, the court must enter an order of possession in favor of the landlord. HB614 rectifies the long-overlooked denial of due process and denial of a right to a jury trial by extending the indigency waiver to all civil litigants, regardless of the type of case. With this bill, low income-tenants who wish to appeal their eviction case can ask the court to waive the appeal bond, thereby granting them full access to review of their case in Circuit Court. The Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights supports this bill.

The VA State Conference NAACP support this bill.

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell. I am a Veteran who comes from a family of veterans and first responders. I reside in Manassas and I am a constituent of Del Roem. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I am grateful the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with professional court appointed guardians here in VA, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. As a key stakeholder for the JLARC Guardianship Study I implore you to vote for each of these important and necessary Bills to address the findings in the Study and prevent what happened to my sister and our family from happening to anyone else. Before you vote I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached written testimony I gave to the subcommittee last week. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

When considering the frequency of required guardian visits, please be aware that the National Guardianship Association's Standards of Practice requires MONTHLY visits. Asking Virginia guardians to visit every 90 days, with some flexibility, is really a low but much needed bar. If the concern is that required visits every 90 days would be too great a burden on guardians, consider FIRST the much greater needs of the at-risk person under guardianship whose needs can change quickly over time. A person-centered system means putting the individual first. Also consider that the guardian is a fiduciary, with a huge responsibility, and making minimal required visits should be a natural part of that responsibility. But guardians definitely need support. Please consider ways to assist guardians in their duties through more usable, consistent and accessible forms; training, and technical assistance. Erica Wood, Arlington

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Yolanda Bell and I come again to speak in favor of Del Roem’s HB634 regarding visitation. Regular visitation of wards by guardians is necessary. Especially if they are restricting visitation from family, friends, and clergy. In my sisters case I disagreed with the hospitals discharge decision and as her POA of 17 years I appealed the decision to the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) in Washington, D.C. which IAW federal law should have negated the hospitals discharge decision. The CMS Administrative Law Judge agreed my sister was too ill to be discharged. By that time the hospital had taken her and the guardians contracted by the hospital refused to give her back. Even after providing them with the ALJ’s decision. It was near impossible to get back into to see the trial judge. The hospital that took my sister essentially washed their hands of her once they got her removed from their facility and turned over to their contracted guardians. Their further participation in the process may have prevented the abuse and neglect my sister suffered. An entity should not be able to petition for guardianship of someone to gain their purpose and then wash their hands and say now that she’s gone we want nothing more to do with it. “But for” their action, their petition, my sister and others like her would not have been in a guardianship and ultimately lost their lives. It truly boggles my mind that this is allowed to happen. I sincerely and wholeheartedly do not believe requiring visitation will cause a drop in Professional Court Appointed Guardians. These individuals are being paid, some very significantly. After researching the hospital that took my sister for the last 5 years, in well over 200 cases, my sisters guardians who have over 100 wards were pulling in an estimated $1M plus a year on their wards just in federal funding, SSI, military and federal retirements, etc., not to mention those wards who were well off. So I do not believe professional guardians will just walk away. Unfortunately not everyone serving as a professional guardian has the integrity, conscience, and foresight of Del Leftwich to know when they are not able to serve their wards to the best of their ability while serving their firm equally as well; recognizing that he was doing his wards a disservice. And to make that difficult decision that it was one or the other. If a guardian is not doing an eyes on visit things will be missed, and it will be to the detriment of vulnerable wards, especially those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. You have seen some of the pictures of what was done to my sister. She suffered dearly. Why? Because she was allowed to be severely isolated, and her particular guardians did not take complaints of abuse seriously and did not check on her. Please do not let this happen to anyone else. I will never truly recover from what was done to my sister. However knowing this Assembly has prevented others from experiencing what my family has experienced will make it a little easier to make it through the days. Please vote unanimously to report HB634. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

AARP Virginia supports legislation that improves the rights of the individual under guardianship and ensures due process of those rights. As such we are in support of House Bills 424 (Herring), 623 (Hudson), 634 & 643 (Roem).

Comments by Charlotte Barkley, Executive Director of PAAC (the Parent Advocacy and Advisory Council of South West Virginia) and the step-mother of a former resident of SWVTC who is now thriving in a Group Home placement. I strongly support HB634 as it ensures a regular, ongoing observation of an incapacitated person’s overall health, care and well-being. The assurance that an incapacitated person is being properly cared for can be upheld by allowing the guardian to hire someone to visit the incapacitated person and report back on the observations made during the visit. This allows a guardian who is unable to make a personal visit and observation at least every 90 days, for whatever reason, a way to ensure the incapacitated person is being well cared for.

While not representing an organization, I am a member of the Virginia Public Guardian and Conservator Advisory Board and the Supreme Court WINGS (Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders) and was involved for many years in guardianship issues when working at the American Bar Association. I support HB 634, to ensure guardians are better informed about the needs, goals, preferences and values of the adult they are serving, and to bring Virginia closer to the national standard in guardian visits. I support HB 643 on review hearings, to strengthen the court's role in monitoring, and to determine whether a guardianship continues to be necessary of needs to be modified. I support HB 623 sharpening the duties, role and report of the guardian ad litem.

Comments by Jane Powell, former President of Central Virginia Training Center Families and Friends: I am a legal guardian for my sister, a former resident of CVTC. Family guardians of current and former Training Center residents, and presumably other family guardians, would be unduly burdened by the following guardianship bills and are furthermore not qualified to meet all of the requirements of the bills: HB424, HB634 and HB643. These bills set laudable goals, yet codifying these goals would cause negative consequences for family guardians, many of whom are in their 70s or older. • Many of the former residents of CVTC and SWVTC in particular sought legal guardianship of their training center loved ones prior to closure of those facilities, and those who are distant from their loved one’s new placement would be unduly and unnecessarily burdened by quarterly in-person visits when their loved one is in a stable and desirable placement. For example, one guardian lives in Florida and has arranged for his capable and fully engaged son to check in on his SEVTC relative on a frequent basis. The guardian does see his disabled son several times a year, but legally requiring strictly scheduled quarterly in-person visits would impose a completely unnecessary burden and expense. Other family guardians of former training center residents would face similar difficulties. • Family guardians lack the professional qualifications to “observe and assess” some of the provisions of HB424 and HB634, such as how an individual’s mental and physical health care needs are being met. Few visits occur during educational or vocational programs when such observational visits would be disruptive, and likewise there is often no way for families to “observe” progress made toward expressed goals. Family guardians rely on the professionals who care for their loved ones to inform them of the status of these things. • Most training center residents and former training center residents lack funds to pay a professional substitute to make visits on their guardian’s behalf, as proposed in HB634. • Many family guardians lack the technological savvy and/or equipment to meet some of the virtual meeting alternatives proposed in these bills. • Routine court review hearings are unnecessary for severely developmentally disabled persons whose conditions will never improve to the point that they will no longer need a guardian. Going through a court proceeding every three years imposes unnecessary expense and hardship on the families of such individuals. HB424, HB634 and HB643 would have a chilling effect on family guardianship, when families by their nature have the purest guardianship motives and thus should be encouraged. If applied only to paid professional guardians, the bills might make sense, but not when they are universally applied to all legal guardians. Even so, most of the bills’ provisions would be better as opt-in measures when circumstances warrant such measures rather than universal requirements for all legal guardians.

I am writing to request your support this session for House Bills 634, 643, 1207 and 1620. All of these bills are regarding various facets of guardianship. I have been involved in attempts to change or introduce new legislation in Virginia since I approached my local delegate in November 2017. Additionally, I have testified in the House subcommittee regarding the legislation and how it directly affected my ability to visit with my now deceased partner since June 2017. During that period, I was not allowed to visit for arbitrary reasons due to a guardian for two years. This left my partner isolated and I am sure contributed to her early demise due to Alzheimer's disease. I hope that what happened to me and multiple other Virginians will not continue into perpetuity. There was no one else to regularly visit her and it still pains me as she died with my only seeing her twice in three years. Thank you in consideration and support. Sincerely, Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Yolanda Bell and I thank you for allowing me to speak today. I am a Veteran and constituent of Del Roem’s. I have come to testify in favor of guardianship reform for the last three years. I promised my mother the day before she died I would take care of my sister Anastasia and keep her safe. The Inova guardians made a liar out of me. My sister was 120+lbs when the guardians took her.  She weighed a mere 87lbs nine months later when they ended her life. She had no terminal illness. This is what happens when wards are allowed to be isolated from loving family and friends.  When reporting requirements and oversight of guardians and by guardians is lax and almost nonexistent vulnerable wards suffer, are abused, neglected, and die. Anastasia literally had 13 holes in her body and too many bruises to count. Delegate Roem has seen the autopsy pictures. Her isolation was so severe that she was forced to die alone with no one to hold her hand, tell her they loved her, no one to pray with her or over her. Clergy was even turned away preventing them from giving her the last rites of the Church. My mother always taught us "family will be there for you when no one else will." The extra sets of eyes are taken away by guardian isolation leaving no one to look out for them or to protect them.   The entire situation surrounding my sisters guardianship was a travesty of epic proportions. No one should be ripped away from a loving and caring family. Even the judge said my sister was well taken care of by me. No one should be forced to die alone. And guardians, professional court appointed guardians who make their living off the pain and suffering of the elderly and disabled - the vulnerable - should not have carte blanche power to isolate wards from family especially where no abuse, neglect, or exploitation has been alleged or found. Our father was a combat veteran serving 26 years in the Air Force. It astounds me that almost 5 years later we are still fighting to get these basic protections for the disabled and elderly who are conscripted into these guardianships. I am grateful that the JLARC Study exposed and highlighted the numerous problems we have with guardianships and professional guardians here in Virginia, not the least of which are isolation and lack of oversight. Guardianships as they currently stand in Virginia strip the wards of their constitutional rights. In 1974 the US Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois held that "family association rises to a constitutional right."  What was done to my sister Anastasia will haunt me for the rest of my life. The bottom line and reality of the situation is that I should not have had to beg to see my sister. I should not have had to beg to spend time with her, to be by her side, especially once they decided to end her life. No one should have to beg and plead with anyone let alone strangers to be with their loved one especially if they are dying. God by whatever name you choose to call Him, and by whatever means you choose to worship Him, commands us to protect and care for the vulnerable, for “the least of these among us”. You have an opportunity ensure what happened to my sister and our family never happens again to anyone else. People are being hurt and are dying.  Please pass these bills to protect the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Yolanda Bell

As an attorney who has served as counsel to Petitioner's in Guardianship (institutional and private) AND to Respondent (alleged incapacitated) and as Court Appointed Guardian Ad Litem, I am very familiar with the real life implications and human concerns with the parties in these cases. I am thoroughly familiar with the current Guardianship statutes, procedures and the weaknesses in the system. I have read all the proposed bills, as well as the JLARC report and would like to comment. I am not particularly opposed nor in favor

The Arc of Northern Virginia supports the guardianship reform bills presented by Delegates Herring, Roem, and Glass. These bills all increase transparency around guardianship and better protect the person under guardianship. We get calls from individuals who are unsatisfied with their guardian's choices to deny visits from loved ones, lack of communication/visits, and with concerns about the guardian's actions. These bills provide protection for vulnerable individual's who rely on a robust guardianship oversight system to stay safe and protect their rights.

I would appreciate if you take in consideration my thoughts on these bulls especially 1080. This would harm innocent children and families their are 13,000 children on sex offender registries in Virginia...What do you plan to do with them their parents can go in a shelter but a child is excluded. Also a single parent who has a requirement to register stays outside and children are took inside unattended. Please consider this bill as not a wise choice

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

I support HB1058. Many noncustodial parents have child support orders set beyond their ability to pay with their low-income wages, often living paycheck to paycheck trying to support their children, families, and themselves. Putting interest on arrearages further compounds their dire financial situation and inability to pay, setting into motion a domino effect of penalties. For many noncustodial parents, these penalties are financially cataclysmic. If the noncustodial parent is employed, their paycheck can be garnished, leading them into further debt. If they have a low credit score, they often have trouble securing housing, ending up homeless. If they have a driver’s license, it can be taken away. The parent must then use public transportation, lessening their viability for a better job. Transportation expert Randal O'Toole says that "One recent study found that low‐income people with cars have access to 30 times as many jobs as low‐income people dependent on transit." See Randal O'Toole, Helping People Reach Jobs, Cato Institute, Nov. 15, 2017 (https://www.cato.org/blog/helping-people-reach-jobs). Government restrictions withholding a poor person’s ability to drive lead to them getting worse jobs or working fewer hours than if they could quickly drive to work. That shrinks the size of the economy and increases the federal budget deficit. Spending hard-earned taxpayer money to try and collect from poor noncustodial parents is a waste of time and resources, and the likelihood of getting them to pay is slim. The financial impacts on noncustodial parents also lead to negative relational and emotional outcomes for children. Studies show when a noncustodial parent owes child support beyond their ability to pay, they have significantly less contact with their children, and when they do interact with them, they are less effective parents. Debt also leads to decreased mental and physical health and worsens family relationships. The children suffer in the long run. Please vote YES for HB1058.

This bill makes sense, and I support it. It will reduce uncollectable arrearages and hard-to-collect arrearages that consume lots of taxpayer dollars to collect -- often more than the amount of the arrearage collected. When people live paycheck to paycheck, they have a hard time paying retroactive child support. Even if they can manage to come up with the money to pay retroactive child support, they will have trouble paying interest on top of it. It doesn't make sense for state officials or courts to spend time and money to try to extract additional interest when a poor noncustodial parent already can just barely pay the underlying child support to begin with. Many working-class parents are already at the edge of survival, financially, and can be destroyed by a large retroactive award of child support, with can lead to the suspension of a drivers license needed to have a decent job to pay adequate levels of child support. As Judge Anne Kass observed, many noncustodial parents simply cannot pay in full what they are ordered to pay. She said, "I have seen far more parents who are ordered to pay child support who pay some support but not all they are ordered to pay. Many of these parents are engaged in a financial struggle they cannot win. These are the working poor." This is the classic situation where parents often simply can't pay, as opposed to being unwilling to pay. The Baltimore Sun reported on how excessive child support obligations backfired and resulted in low-income parents losing jobs and drivers licenses and actually paying less child support as a result: "Decades of ... policy for setting high child support orders .... has done more harm than good for low-income Maryland families, destabilized communities and trapped many men in a cycle of debt they cannot escape, a report by the Abell Foundation released Tuesday shows. "The report, written by [a former] top [federal] child support enforcement officer...said the state should ensure orders are set by the court based on a parent’s ability to pay, using their actual income rather than their potential earnings. [the way Virginia and Maryland do] … "'Child support orders set beyond the ability of noncustodial parents to comply push them out of low-wage jobs, drown them in debt, hound them into the underground economy, and chase them out of their children’s lives,' Vicki Turetsky wrote in the 55-page report." See Yvonne Wenger, "Maryland should overhaul child support system and how payments are set, Abell Foundation report says," Baltimore Sun, June 18, 2019 (https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-child-support-abell-foundation-20190618-story.html). When noncustodial parents lose their jobs or their drivers licenses (due to inability to pay excessive child support obligations), they end up making less money, and actually often end up paying less in child support over the long run. Most good jobs aren't easily accessible via public transit, and require a car to commute to. See Ian Chaffee, "How transit affects job seekers—the first and last mile to the station make all the difference."

This should be linked with HB 572 as well. I am a father who has been taken advantage of by the system for the sole reason that he left the mother. No amicable resolution was possible, and no had to force me to support my child; I did so voluntarily and thoroughly, paying well over $1,000 a month on a schoolteacher's salary. Did the court force the mother to respect the visitation and custody arrangement she had agreed to? No. They enabled her, made excuses for her, and consistently prioritized her needs over the child's. I fought both the ex and the court so my daughter could see me. The court consistently gave more visitation hours, only to refuse to enforce them, effectively depriving me of all visitation. Years later, in 2018, I was accused of and wrongly convicted of a felony and was unable to pay. Boy, did the law come down on me! I had to liquidate retirement to pay back child support, with interest. Even when the formula changed in 2014, they came back at me, and I paid. I paid for all autism treatments prior to that. I had to work 5 jobs, while my ex worked 5-10 hours per week. In 2020, the court decided that it didn't matter that I can't find employment due to my felony, or that I was underemployed. I had to create a miracle somehow. Now, you are about to hand them another cudgel with which to beat fathers like me. There should be no interest whatsoever; this serves not to compensate the child, but a particularly vicious brand of mother. The interest cessation should be retroactive in some fashion.

I oppose multiple bills that have made it to the house the one bill regarding Emergency Sex Offenders is the most absurd bill I have ever heard in my life. No one is going to be worried about sexual offending in a State of Emergency number one. For example Dad is on a registry and he has three children who are accepted inside without supervision while dad is kept outside in the storm or natural catastrophe. When you pass bills like this your punishing innocent children and families. What about people who committed murder or child abusers are they treated the same? You Senators and delegates got this wrong and this is harmful to innocent families and children. Now let's talk about the 13,000 children on Sex Offender Registries in Virginia some as young as 7 years of age so Mom , Dad and entire family is allowed in but the child is made to stand outside during a castophre alone and sacred while his or her family are allowed inside these laws are based off fear and gives a false sense of security to the general public. Sex Offense is to broad, urination in public is a registable offense as a Violent Sex Offender, Reprorting a Sex Crime will land you on a Violent Sex Offender Registry such is my sistuation. Please reconsider the harm the harm of this bill

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

I do not support any bills that criminalize folks

Chairman, Delegates, I met Ms. Makya Little at several school board meetings and a Townhall on culturally responsive instruction. While we tended to be on the opposite sides of issues related to the school division, I was very impressed with her professional and passionate presentation of her views. I recently became aware of her advocacy to modify Virginia divorce law. She wants it amended so that an abused spouse (like her) does not have to wait a year in hell and risk further abuse and even death to accommodate some archaic concept in Virginia marriage law. I encourage you, on both sides of the aisle, to support the bill. Jeff Fuller LTC USA SF (Ret) Haymarket