I am Lawrence Diehl, an attorney with Barnes & Diehl in Richmond, Va. I have practiced family law for over 48 years and over 30 years I have done 108 appeals to the Virginia Court of Appeals. I strongly support hb1386. I assisted Sen. Surovell and legislative services in the draft language on interlocutory appeals for a similar bill S831 which I also support. We need to restore the restrictions on appeals in family law to FINAL ORDERS only which had been Virginia law for decades prior to 2022. If pendente lite orders in family law cases can be appealed, that will result in a flood of new appeals which will be used by angry or vindictive spouses merely to delay the finality of a divorce case- that delay would be around 9-12 months based on normal appeal processes. Trial courts would lose jurisdiction over the case once an appeal is filed. That is against the strong public policy in Virginia in finality of family law matters to the delay of such proceedings, negatively impacting the parties and their children. Further, in assessing the number of new Virginia Court of Appeals judges needed for their expanded jurisdiction, the data analysis did not consider at all the volume or impact of interlocutory appeals in family law cases. By allowing such appeals, the Virginia Court of Appeals will be understaffed and lacking resources due to the volume of these unanticipated appeals by the recommending committee which led to the current expanded jurisdiction of the Virginia Court of Appeals. The omission of family law case exceptions to interlocutory orders was an oversight when the 2022 amendment on this topic was amended. Hb1386 restores the Virginia Court of Appeals jurisprudence to final orders only, just as it had been for decades and decades prior to 2022. And this bill is needed to resolve the uncertainty of family law jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals in a case now pending in the Virginia Court of Appeals called Choi v Choi. A decision on its jurisdiction is pending. Please enact this bill.

I sent comments relating to the need to restore the law on interlocutory appeals in family law cases per hb1386. However, I meant those comments to refer to hb1386, not hb1385. I support hb1386 for the reasons stated in my prior submission.

Hi

I have worked in nursing homes and we absolutely need this law to protect elderly folks on medicaid. Local DSS units deem nursing homes a safe placement under their regs, so if there is an accusation of abuse, neglect or stealing someone's funds, adult protective services doesn't generally go after it. The local law enforcement is often not able to take it on either. What we really need are investigators who actually understand how medicaid works and what abuse of the elderly looks like. It is a huge problem, and we really need all the help we can get.

Please Vote NO on HB1452. This bill creates a Medicaid Fraud law enforcement investigating arm of the Attorney General's office. Thirty new law enforcement officers with badges and uniforms and the ability to investigate any "ancillary" criminal offense. This bill could subject families and recipients to overly aggressive tactics by the Attorney General's office. This bill does not expressly limit the investigations into activities by providers. The bill should be limited to investigations of providers and expressly state that the office does not investigate recipients and their families. There is no justification for the financial cost of 30 new state law enforcement officers with vested benefits. This will discourage professionals from becoming Medicaid providers by creating more barriers and red tape. This bill further harasses families and caregivers with the uncertain threat of law enforcement demanding cooperation with any vague ancillary criminal investigations. Please VOTE NO on HB1452

Dear Members of the House Courts of Justice Subcommittee #1, Please VOTE NO on HB1452. This bill creates a police force in the Attorney General's office to investigate Medicaid fraud. Protect families and limit any law enforcement investigation to providers, not recipients. As a family member of a recipient, it is hard enough getting approved for long-term care Medicaid services and go through multiple evaluations and continuous monitoring with our local and state agencies. Please do not make our lives and the ones we care for any more difficult. Thank you and please VOTE NO on HB1452. Sincerely, Nicole Miller Chapter Operations Manager Autism Society Tidewater Virginia

I support this bill. Teachers need far more protections from what has become a hyper-sexualized punish first, punish last system whereby one is guilty until proven innocent. When I was accused and subsequently found guilty absent "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidentiary standard, all appeals were effectively vacated. Appeal to the useless courts? Nope, courts are required to adhere to the trial court's view unless extraordinary circumstances are met (justice isn't one of them). A review before firing only allows the school to prove you were convicted of a felony, something a precocious 5th grader can do. We need to enact this, and far better safeguards for all those of us whose lives were destroyed on mere accusations and assumptions.

I write in support of House Bill Number 1550 to allow teachers with a founded Child Protective Services Complaint a trial de novo in Circuit Court after state appeals are exhausted. Founded CPS dispositions can occur when teachers defend themselves or defend students in the good faith performance of their teaching duties. Our Virginia Circuit Court due process protections for the wrongly and falsely accused would safeguard teachers' good faith performance of their duties at a time when teachers' safety and the safety of the students are physically threatened. James G. Hunter, III Attorney, Lynchburg

I am an attorney and have represented several individuals who are school personnel accused of abuse. An administrative hearing is very different than a trial. The review by a Circuit Court under the administrative process act is not a meaningful review and is only whether a reasonable fact-finder could have come to the conclusion of the administrative panel. School personnel who have a founded complaint lose their careers. They lose what they have spent years studying for, what they have dedicated their lives towards working for, what they define themselves as. The stakes are much higher for them than the general public. I don't foresee the additional protections of this bill being widely used or being burdensome on DSS or the Courts. While school personnel often have allegations of wrongdoing the majority of these reports are screened out or the initial determination will be unfounded. The small percent that have an initial determination of founded will then go to an informal hearing. These are conducted in a variety of manners around the state. Some allow you to questions witnesses, and present evidence, others do not. Some are conducted not by a neutral party but by the local director who may have been involved in making or approving the initial determination. However the process goes, many of the initial determinations do get reversed prior to going to the state level administrative appeal.

My name is Monica Mroz, and I am an attorney with Strelka Employment Law in Roanoke, Virginia. For the last 15 years, I have represented Virginia teachers in various administrative settings, including defending them against CPS complaints. Though CPS views itself as a non-penal agency, I have seen firsthand the devastating impact that an unwarranted CPS complaint can have on a teacher's livelihood. Complaints can be made anonymously and the threshold for screening in a complaint for investigation is extremely low. It is extraordinarily rare for a complaint to be screened out. Unlike the family setting, where CPS can choose to do a family assessment (a process designed to identify education opportunities and needed services) instead of an investigation, when the target of the complaint is an educator, there is only one track: investigation. Investigations have no end but a "finding." Findings are made by a preponderance of the evidence, only. The impact of a finding (after all appeals have been exhausted) against an educator results in licensure revocation (by operation of statute) and entry into a database for 3 to nearly 20 years, depending on the level of the finding. Presence in the database results in teachers being unable to work, or even volunteer to work, with children for the operative period. Initial findings are made by the investigator with a supervisor's approval. There are two intra-agency appeals--one to the Director of the local agency who is the decisionmaker, and one to a hearing officer. While the teacher can bring witnesses, there is no similar ability to compel witnesses, as one may do in court, and rules of evidence do not apply, which permits a great deal of unreliable evidence into the proceedings. As mandatory reporters, school systems have adopted a very cautious aspect, frequently exercising little critical judgment over whether a complaint actually constitutes abuse or neglect, and report as a matter of course. A teacher does have right to counsel, even in their initial interview with CPS during the investigation, but many school system administrations focus on "getting the process over with" once the report has been made, as during the investigation, the teacher is most often placed on administrative leave. The teacher is often pressured to participate in an interview with CPS, immediately, and frequently on school grounds with their administrator present. I have worked with many different local CPS agencies, and do believe the investigators do their best, but find that many are unprepared or overworked, and perhaps not cognizant of the far reaching effects of their investigations and conclusions. Ensuring a circuit court trial for teachers would provide a much needed extra layer of protection for our educators who devote their careers to caring for and securing our children. I have long thought this process, while no doubt conceived to protect children, has gone too far, and the unintended consequence has been to actually remove good and caring teachers from our schools. Thank you for allowing me to speak--please give our teachers this additional layer of process so that they may protect their livelihoods, and so that further miscarriages of justice may be prevented.

Existing paragraph D1 that permits an action within 10 years is more than sufficient. In that time frame, an adult should be able to receive whatever counseling is required before choosing to claim injury. And what does "person in a position of trust having influence over the victim's life" equate to? What is the definition of "influence"? The bill is too broad to be in the best interests of all Virginia citizens.

Honorable Delegates, As a survivor of abuse, by someone in authority over me, I support HB1647 as I know the after effects of abuse. Because of the psychological impact, victims oftentimes cannot disclose soon after abuse occurs and require hours and hours of therapy to understand the abuse and begin to recover from its impact. It is impractical for victims to be able to disclose and go through the avenues for justice within a two year period. Because of this the majority of perpetrators are able to go without any accountability for their actions as victims endure lifelong impact from these actions. Please help victims of abuse hold their abusers accountable. Thank you for your consideration.

Honorable Delegates, I write in support of HB1647, currently before this legislative body. I support this bill because it is imperative that individuals in positions of authority, who use their position to abuse those in their care, be held civilly accountable. Victims of abuse incur significant monetary costs to address the trauma from the abuse they endured. It is my position that the perpetrator should bare the financial burden of the fallout of the abuse they inflicted. Thank you for your consideration.

The Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking ("VCAHT") wants to thank the Honorable Delegate for bringing this HB1705 forward for consideration. VCAHT supports passage of this legislation because it would allow for additional prosecutorial resources to be brought to bear against those who are exploiting minors whether sexually and/or for commercial gain. The power to prosecute cases in regard to other crimes against minors is already available to the Virginia Attorney General's Office and this is a logical extension of that authority. Accordingly, VCAHT urges that the members of the Subcommittee to vote in favor of this Bill.

The VSPA has been involved with the study of how retail businesses have suffered through the crimes being committed against them and is in full support of this legislation

Comments Document

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I am Mike Jacobs from Alexandria. I am not able to attend in person this year due to my recent cancer diagnosis and the death of my mother. This is the fifth consecutive year that I have made a statement regarding this bill. Again, for the fifth straight year, I want to thank the Virginia delagates for his sponsorship and championing this important legislation. This bill is designed to right a terrible injustice that limits the ability of guardians to overstep their boundaries. There are nearly 11,000 Virginians under guardianships and an unknown number of people who are isolated. Many friends and loved ones are punished due to the actions of some guardians for no other reason than that they have the power to control the life of the ward. There are many people who have suffered more than I have, but I can at least attest to the pain of someone whose last cognitive years have been taken away. This bill will give the courts more latitude for visitation with an incapacitated person who is being isolated from a loved one or someone in a long-standing relationship. Most people will never experience what I’ve endured. I was in a relationship with Jane K. Lopez for 17 years. It is terrible enough to lose someone to this debilitating disease of Alzheimer’s. However, Jane and I lost two years of our lives by not being able to see each other due to the arbitrary decision of the guardian. I was only allowed to see her twice in the past before she passed in July 2020, once she was institutionalized in June 2017. Jane did not recognize me after not seeing me for so long. She went into the facility and never knew what happened to me. She faced that alone and my being denied access to her likely exacerbated her condition. Even her immediate family was denied access for several months. Nothing in this bill can change anything for many who have already lost their loved ones, but it is not too late for those who face a similar challenge in the future. People like Jane have nowhere to go for help. Were it not for my speaking up, she would simply fall through the cracks and no one would know the agony she endured from being isolated at the time when she needed support and the presence of those who love her most. Isolation of any individual is not healthy, and I hope that this bill will provide the opportunity for people to be able to finally see a loved one. I only ask for your compassion as you make this decision and advance the bill out of committee Thank you for your time today. Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723 Phone: (202) 716-9268 (mobile)

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell, and I am a constituent of Delegate Roem. I have been here before this committee every year since my sister, Anastasia Adams, was killed; speaking in favor of Bills that will stop institutions and guardians from doing what was done to her again. As the constituent behind the JLARC Study I don’t know what else I can say to you or show you to impress upon you the importance and urgent need for these bills and meaningful guardianship reform with teeth. So I leave you with the facts and plead with you once again to pass these bills unanimously. (Continued in the attached)

Comments of Erica Wood on HB 2027 January 23, 2023 I am Erica Wood, and I have been advocating for adult guardianship reform at the national and state level for many years, including serving on the state task force that in 1997 drafted our guardianship code, as sponsored by Senator Joseph Gartlan. I strongly support both of Del. Roem’s guardianship bills, which are pursuant to the recommendations of the 2021 report of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. HB 2027 – Visitation Restrictions by the Guardian Communication is a basic right. Guardians should aim NOT to restrict this basic right unless absolutely necessary to protect from harm. This bill provides sound guidance and a sound procedural framework for such restrictions ONLY as a last resort. It provides a voice for the incapacitated person and the restricted person, and notice to all parties. It has the agreement of all stakeholders today, and offers importance guidance in this long grey area of the law. I support its passage.

Erica Wood Comments on HB 2028 As amended, this bill would require guardians to visit an incapacitated person three times a year – at least once in person by the guardian; once by a family member or skilled professional monitored by the guardian; and once could be virtual. It is extremely important that a vulnerable, incapacitated person receive at least two visits a year in person. We are all aware of the devastating effects of isolation in the pandemic. Additionally, conditions of incapacitated persons can change very fast. In-person visits allow for making assessments of the person’s actual functioning, assessing the living environment, and assessing for any undue influence.

SUMMARY: This is an explanation of the reasons to vote against HB2028 I write to express my concerns about a pending bill, HB2028, which concerns establishing new actions that guardians of legally incapacitated individuals are required to take. Specifically, the proposed Bill, as currently written, states that guardians have to visit their wards at least every 90 days, with at least two such visits in person per year. I believe that this bill, while well intentioned, would have a chilling effect on family guardianship. I respectfully ask you to not allow this Bill to pass through the Committee, or, in the alternative, to consider amendments to this bill that this requirement should apply only to public guardians paid by the state, with a listed exception for unpaid family guardians or friends, whose intentions and motives can be assumed to be the purest. My own family example provides, I believe, a compelling case. I live in Fairfax; my mentally handicapped adult sister, of whom I am a legal guardian, resides at Southeastern Virginia Training Center (SEVTC) in Chesapeake. My other sister, who is also my handicapped sister's legal guardian, lives in Richmond. My sister and I take turns visiting our mentally handicapped sister every two weeks. For me, it is a 400 mile round trip; for my sister, it is a 200 mile round trip. Right now, my sister and I are capable of enduring the rigors of such trips, but I am positive that at some point in the future, I, and eventually my other sister, will become unable to continue such arduous trips. Another problem is that virtual calls, which are intended to be the backup if guardians cannot visit in person, are problematic. Assuming that everyone has enough income to buy a computer and pay monthly for internet service is unintentionally discriminatory against people with lower incomes. For the brief time I was president of the Parents’ Group for the Training Center in Petersburgh, I had to communicate with more than half of the members of the group by mail because they did not have computers. Even today, there are a number of members of the SEVTC Parents & Friends Group who don't have computers. This proposed bill has a number of serious deficiencies: a. Who is going to police mandated visitation intervals? b. What are the consequences if visitation mandates are not invariably met? c. Do mandates apply to each co-guardian and/or standby guardian for any given individual? d. If other family members or trusted friends (who are not mentioned in the bill) fulfill part of the visiting requirements, must they provide a written report to the guardian, as the bill states, or just any care professionals who may visit? e. In the case of guardians who lack the knowledge and devices to visit virtually, does that satisfy the ready availability exemption? Or does that only apply to residential providers? It would be a tragedy for everyone, but most especially the handicapped person, if family members were forced to withdraw or were disqualified from being their loved one's guardian because of this requirement. I respectfully urge you to either vote not to have the Bill pass out of Committee, or, at least, have this requirement apply to public guardians, with a specific exclusion for family and friends who are guardians. Thank you for your time, Lorraine M. Koury, Esquire (Retired)

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, My name is Yolanda Bell, and I am a constituent of Delegate Roem. I reiterate the facts I provided in my testimony on Monday the 23rd. I am in favor of this bill as it is urgently needed to protect the absolute most vulnerable among us. It will stop institutions and guardians from doing what was done to my sister Anastasia and others like her. On Monday the Chair, Delegate posed two questions. (1) Where was the guardian with over 100 wards? Alexandria. It was my sisters guardians, Kenneth Labowitz and Anne Heishman. The later is now the commission of accounts for Fairfax County and approves her old partners charges. (2) That didn’t raise a flag with anyone, the circuit court judge appointing them on the 99th case, that didn’t raise a concern for anyone? If you read the official transcript I provided the committee of my sisters hearing you will see that Labowitz, testifies under oath he had over 100 wards. Judge Shannon did not bat an eyelash or comment. This is one of the reasons I testified against Judge Shannon being reappointed last month. The hospital associations concern of “not being able to find guardians” if this bill requiring 4 visits holds very little merit. Hospitals contract and pay their guardians. I can unequivocally state that Inova pays their guardians and the guardian ad litems, and pays them well. One only has to look at court documents. VCU paid their guardian. As the saying goes, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch. In this instance, two guardians and an unnecessary and preventable death. Two guardians who had no oversight, who did not visit their wards on a regular and consistent basis, and a Court that conducted no oversight and turned a blind eye to them having over 100 wards at the same time. So I leave you with the facts and plead with you to protect those who cannot protect themselves and pass HB2028 unanimously. Thank you for your time and attention. Respectfully, Yolanda Bell Anastasia’s Voice

I am Erica Wood, and have worked in guardianship reform for many years, especially through my past position as Assistant Director at the American Bar Association Commission on Law and Aging. As I noted the other day, guardian visits to the incapacitated person are at the very heart of the guardians’ job. In fact, without adequate visits and contact, the guardian can’t really fulfill the grave duty of making decisions for someone else. That’s why Del. Roem’s bill provides for four visits annually – two in person and two virtual. Yet Del. Roem recognizes that guardians have challenges and so she has built in maximum flexibility through the option for guardians to use family members or skilled professionals they retain – as well as remote options. These sensible compromises reflect discussions in the Workgroup, as well with a range of stakeholders over the past year. A few points to keep in mind are that: (1) National standards by the premiere guardianship provider group, the National Guardianship Association, as well as standards for our own Virginia public guardianship program require monthly visits. Four visits a year is a good step, yet allows flexibility. (2) The Virginia Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, whose members will be making many of these visits, does not oppose the four visits per year. They well understand the need. (3) Guardians who do not have a retained skilled professional can also use the family member visit option, if there is a reliable family member. (4) Guardians who have not retained a skilled professional yet serve multiple incapacitated people may need to do so to provide responsible guardian services. (5) Professional guardians serve many incapacitated persons in home and community settings, as well as health care settings – where in-person visits may be vital to address isolation and changes in basic health and safety. Here in Virginia, we want a caring, high quality guardianship system, and Del. Roem has a sound and well-balanced bill toward that end.

As a individual called on by many attorneys and judges to serve as a Guardian for individuals that do not have family or friends to serve or the individual has family or friends who are either in conflict or, at times, whether bad actors, non-existent, or unable to serve in the role, this legislation will severely reduce the ability to have an individual like me continue to serve in this role, I do not feel that the individuals who actually serve in this role have had an opportunity to explain the constraints and effects as the system currently exists. I understand that the system is not perfect as it exists, and this legislation seems to shift a burden further on individuals like myself. The net effect is that I will not be able to serve as a Guardian for as many incapacitated individuals. This will only create more incapacitated individuals that have no one to act on their behalf. Although this legislation may be well intended, the consequences are going to create a new problem which in my opinion will be worse for society.

This is in support of HB2028. I cannot create a PDF file on my computer so I am sending my testimony via MS Word to Danica Roem's staff for submission. TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF HB2028 “GUARDIANSHIP: DUTIES OF GUARDIAN, VISITATION REQUIREMENTS” BEFORE THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY SUBCOMMITTEE (JANUARY 25, 2023) Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I am Michael Jacobs from Alexandria. I am not able to attend in person this year due to my recent cancer diagnosis and the death of my mother. This is the sixth consecutive year that I have made a statement regarding this bill. Again, for the sixth straight year, I want to thank the Virginia delegates for their sponsorship and championing this important legislation. This bill is designed to right a terrible injustice that limits the ability of guardians to overstep their boundaries. There are nearly 11,000 Virginians under guardianships and an unknown number of people who are isolated. Many friends and loved ones are punished due to the actions of some guardians for no other reason than that they have the power to control the life of the ward. There are many people who have suffered more than I have, but I can at least attest to the pain of someone whose last cognitive years have been taken away. This bill will give the courts more latitude for visitation with an incapacitated person who is being isolated from a loved one or someone in a long-standing relationship. Most people will never experience what I’ve endured. I was in a relationship with Jane K. Lopez for 17 years. It is terrible enough to lose someone to this debilitating disease of Alzheimer’s. However, Jane and I lost two years of our lives by not being able to see each other due to the arbitrary decision of the guardian. I was only allowed to see her twice in the past before she passed in July 2020, once she was institutionalized in June 2017. Jane did not recognize me after not seeing me for so long. She went into the facility and never knew what happened to me. She faced that alone and my being denied access to her likely exacerbated her condition. Even her immediate family was denied access for several months. Nothing in this bill can change anything for many who have already lost their loved ones, but it is not too late for those who face a similar challenge in the future. People like Jane have nowhere to go for help. Were it not for my speaking up, she would simply fall through the cracks and no one would know the agony she endured from being isolated at the time when she needed support and the presence of those who love her most. Isolation of any individual is not healthy, and I hope that this bill will provide the opportunity for people to be able to finally see a loved one. I only ask for your compassion as you make this decision and advance the bill out of committee. Thank you for your time today. Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723 Phone: (202) 716-9268 (mobile)

The Virginia Autism Project and the Virginia Autism Advocacy Alliance oppose HB2028 and request that these extensive requirements be limited to paid guardians and this bill should exempt family members.

Comments Document

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I am Mike Jacobs from Alexandria. I am not able to attend in person this year due to my recent cancer diagnosis and the death of my mother. This is the fifth consecutive year that I have made a statement regarding this bill. Again, for the fifth straight year, I want to thank the Virginia delagates for his sponsorship and championing this important legislation. This bill is designed to right a terrible injustice that limits the ability of guardians to overstep their boundaries. There are nearly 11,000 Virginians under guardianships and an unknown number of people who are isolated. Many friends and loved ones are punished due to the actions of some guardians for no other reason than that they have the power to control the life of the ward. There are many people who have suffered more than I have, but I can at least attest to the pain of someone whose last cognitive years have been taken away. This bill will give the courts more latitude for visitation with an incapacitated person who is being isolated from a loved one or someone in a long-standing relationship. Most people will never experience what I’ve endured. I was in a relationship with Jane K. Lopez for 17 years. It is terrible enough to lose someone to this debilitating disease of Alzheimer’s. However, Jane and I lost two years of our lives by not being able to see each other due to the arbitrary decision of the guardian. I was only allowed to see her twice in the past before she passed in July 2020, once she was institutionalized in June 2017. Jane did not recognize me after not seeing me for so long. She went into the facility and never knew what happened to me. She faced that alone and my being denied access to her likely exacerbated her condition. Even her immediate family was denied access for several months. Nothing in this bill can change anything for many who have already lost their loved ones, but it is not too late for those who face a similar challenge in the future. People like Jane have nowhere to go for help. Were it not for my speaking up, she would simply fall through the cracks and no one would know the agony she endured from being isolated at the time when she needed support and the presence of those who love her most. Isolation of any individual is not healthy, and I hope that this bill will provide the opportunity for people to be able to finally see a loved one. I only ask for your compassion as you make this decision and advance the bill out of committee Thank you for your time today. Mike Jacobs 2151 Jamieson Avenue, #707 Alexandria, VA 22314-5723 Phone: (202) 716-9268 (mobile)

Comments Document

My name is Yolanda Bell, and I am a constituent of Delegate Roem. I have been here before this committee every year since my sister, Anastasia Adams, was killed; speaking in favor of Bills that will stop institutions and guardians from doing what was done to her again. As the constituent behind the JLARC Study I don’t know what else I can say to you or show you to impress upon you the importance and urgent need for these bills and meaningful guardianship reform with teeth. So I leave you with the facts and plead with you once again to pass these bills unanimously. (Continued in the attached)

I am writing in opposition to HB 2028, as the former President of an organization of mostly aged guardians whose wards are now scattered across the state due to the closure of their former residential facility. While quarterly in-person visitation is a laudable goal that most current and former training center guardians currently meet or exceed, in time it will inevitably become an often-needless burden for aging parents who, although fully engaged as guardians, will eventually lack the ability to travel distances routinely. I know of some who are already forced to travel six hours or so, one way, to visit their loved ones. Standby guardians, usually siblings, may not even live in Virginia, and the universal visitation interval mandates will have a chilling effect on standby family guardianship. Family members have the purest motives and thus should not be discouraged as guardians, even in instances where their wards' placements are stable and have provided reliable quality care over time. Additionally, many legal guardians are older parents who lack the tech knowledge and devices to communicate virtually. As President of CVTC Families and Friends, I had to communicate with nearly half of our membership through postal mail, because they did not have computers or email. Consider the case of my father who died of cancer in 2019 at age 91, after a lifetime of caring for my sister as her legal guardian. In his final two years he was unable to travel the two hours to visit her at CVTC, her longtime (42 years) stable home where she had received quality reliable care in every facet of her life. My sister and I visited her when we could and monitored her care regularly, but not on a strict schedule, as we had Dad’s needs to attend. When Dad was in hospice care, CVTC staff brought my sister to see him. Should Dad have had his legal guardianship revoked, when he retained his mental faculties, communicated with staff by phone, was very deeply attentive to my sister’s welfare, had been President of CVTC Families and Friends for the 20 years prior to my taking over for him, served on the CVTC Local Human Rights Committee for years and lobbied the state legislature on her behalf for decades? Further, some important questions are unanswered in this bill: a. Who is going to police visitation intervals? b. What are the consequences if visitation mandates are not invariably met? c. Do mandates apply to each co-guardian and/or standby guardian for any given individual? d. If other family members or friends fulfill part of the visiting requirements, must they provide a written report to the guardian, as the bill states, or just any professionals who may visit? e. In the case of guardians who lack the knowledge and devices to visit virtually, does that satisfy the ready availability exemption and thus allow telephone contacts? Or does that only apply to residential providers? f. What of the many wards who lack the capacity to speak or otherwise engage virtually? What if virtual visits upset them? g. What of guardians who occasionally have workplace demands, medical treatments, family emergencies or other occasional obstacles to visits every 90 days? Please kill this bill or amend it to address the above concerns. Do not impose universal mandates when individual ones (or guidelines) are more appropriate. The law already requires sufficient visits to assess the conditions of wards.

Comments of Erica Wood on HB 2028 January 23, 2023 I am Erica Wood, and I have been advocating for adult guardianship reform at the national and state level for many years, including serving on the state task force that in 1997 drafted our guardianship code, as sponsored by Senator Joseph Gartlan. I strongly support both of Del. Roem’s guardianship bills, which are pursuant to the recommendations of the 2021 study of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission HB 2028 – Guardian Visits to the Incapacitated Person Guardians have one of society’s most difficult jobs – making critical life decisions on behalf of someone else. To do this, the Code says they need to “know the person’s capabilities, limitations, needs and opportunities.” To know this, they need to visit frequently enough. Conditions and circumstance for vulnerable populations can change fast, and guardians need to respond in a timely way. Waiting more than 90 days can allow risks with intensifying isolation, deteriorating conditions, changes in health condition, increasing depression, loss of supportive relatives and friends, or the intrusion of undue influence. Conversely, the person might have improved and can be fully or partially restored to capacity. The bill provides for a visit at least every 90 days. The National Guardianship Association Standards require a visit every month. Our Public Guardianship Program requires a visit every month. Ninety days, with two visits in person, is a reasonable step Guardians need to lay eyes on and assess the environment of the person on a regular basis without long gaps. The Virginia Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, with members who must make the visits, is in agreement. I urge you to support the bill.

Comments Document

Child Victim (AZ) Who Used CCTV During a Criminal Trial I wanted to do the closed-circuit television (CCTV) because I was scared to face my dad in court, face to face. The CCTV helped me calm down, but I was still a little bit scared to testify in court, but it helped me face my fear in court. I was able to testify much easier, and it helped me calm down almost all the way. I was glad that I was able to use the CCTV in court. I think CCTV is important because it can help kids face their fear of testifying, and they can go home more stress-free. They can go back to their lives better. I think all kids should be able to use CCTV, more kids should be able to. It was hard to talk to my mom, the detectives, and to the prosecutors, and it would have been harder in court in front of my dad. I think that CCTV helps kids feel a little bit safer than they felt before, and help parents feel that it’s a little bit safer for their kids as well. I think all kids, not just myself would find it much easier to testify in court if they can use CCTV. Comments of the Mother of the Child Victim My daughter, AZ, was a victim of sexual abuse from ages 7-10 years old. Her father, Jose Noe Quintanilla, was found guilty of 3 counts of object sexual penetration and one count of rape. I am writing this statement to express my gratefulness for my daughter’s ability to use closed-circuit television (CCTV) while testifying during the criminal trial, and to advocate in support of more children being able to testify via CCTV in Virginia. My daughter was traumatized from the abuse and had nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks and often thought about the abuse. She suffered from suicidal thoughts regularly. During the trial, and at the time she had to testify, she also lived in an intense fear her dad was going to attack her for telling the truth and did not feel safe about talking about the abuse or testifying in court. As her mother, it pained me and has caused me great stress to see my daughter suffering, and to know it will affect her the rest of her life. My greatest concerns were AZ’s future and getting her through the trial with the least amount of trauma. My daughter was told by the prosecutor’s office she needed to testify in open court. For my daughter, this meant she had to be able to be questioned like an adult about graphic and traumatizing sexual acts her father did to her in open court with her father only several yards away, and in front of others. This is a frightening situation for any child. My daughter was later approved to testify through CCTV. Being able to testify through CCTV helped AZ get through testifying, and has kept the traumatizing impacts of the trial from being too much for her. If she had to testify in front of her father, she may have been unable to speak about the abuse in the courtroom, and would be much more traumatized. Additionally, her father became emotional during her testimony, and if she had to testify only a few yards away from him, his emotional behavior would have affected her ability to testify. Using CCTV gave my daughter the ability to stand up for herself and tell her story in a way that empowers children who have been abused. Please see the short attachment for the rest of testimony. Thank you.

Hi

Hi

Hi

The City of Roanoke fully supports HB 2186 as a very helpful tool to assist our cities deal with public safety issues surrounding derelict properties.

The City of Roanoke supports HB2186 as substituted. The City is interested in this tool for code enforcement and law enforcement which will enable "no trespassing" posting on derelict properties where the owner cannot be found or is absentee. Occupancy of derelict structures by unauthorized persons introduces a variety of community safety concerns that extend beyond the specific property involved (e.g., structure fires, attractive nuisance).

The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police fully supports HB 2186. It is not uncommon for properties that are abandoned or not maintained to end up as drug dens, and localities have been forced to institute blighted property proceedings. HB 2186 is a measure which at least gives law enforcement the authority to remove trespassers and reduce the threat of criminal activity.

There is a Substitute to HB 2186 that incorporates suggestions from the Virginia Association of Realtors and some excellent feedback on an issue that unfortunately many of our cities are experiencing ….. that is, people trespassing and/or squatting in vacant structures on private property, despite signs indicating that these properties are “unsafe” or “unfit” and to “keep out.” Currently, the only mechanism available to the City, when the property owner is not available or not involved, is to issue a notice of violation, but the trespassing/squatting individuals are very difficult to find and give notice. The City needs an enforcement mechanism whereby it can give the police the authority to bar trespassers/squatters from the property when the owners are not available or not involved. The proposed substitute includes removing “county, city, and town”/local government out of “lawfully in charge…..” and instead would allow a locality’s maintenance code official to make an official determination that a specific vacant structure is derelict and to then post one or more No Trespassing signs. The Virginia Chiefs of Police are supportive of this amendment saying, “We are very supportive of HB 2186 ---- Some of these properties end up becoming drug dens, and localities have been forced to institute blighted property proceedings. HB 2186 is a stop gap measure which at least gives law enforcement the authority to remove trespassers. The Southern States Police Benevolent Association said that they are neutral on the bill.

Hi

RE: HB 1435 - PRO -I am in favor of this bill, running sentences concurrently. However, this should be taken up AFTER HB 2013 and 2230. HB 1960 - I am PRO eliminating mandatory minimums. Last year, when I sparred with Del Holt on this matter, he challenged me to provide proof that mandatory minimums did not work. i provided a copy of the Brennan Center study-- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/end-mandatory-minimums within minutes. No study says this works. PLEASE REPEAL MANDATORY MINIMUMS. HB 2013, 2230 - CON -- Both bills once again advanced this session, seek to suspend sentences on 'technical' violations, and to redefine technical to essentially mean whatever the probation officer wants. Example, in 2021, my probation officer determined that I must be wanting to have sex with minors (never mind I was falsely convicted though I plead NOT guilty). Why? Because I was in a hotel's business office at 6 am legally using a computer to apply for a job. I was arrested again, this time claiming I was trying to have sex in a park. Why ? A vigilante group accosted me there, filed a report, and were upset because I was out of jail on appeal, and so they accused me of looking for illicit sex in the park. I was, in fact, jogging. The current system puts the burden of proof on the CW, where it should be, and where the real burden should be. The CW has too much authority now, but repealing this bill, and reimagining both bills to punish greater, does nothing for liberty, nothing for justice, over-trusts the judicial system to do the right thing, where they have failed over and over and over again. VOTE NO

Hi

People should have mandatory minimums for not being responsible with firearms.

Hi

Legal interpreting is a rigorous specialization in the field of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting. The consequences of legal proceedings have potentially dire, long-term effects on those involved. This amendment reduced the accountability of ensuring qualified interpreters. The phrasing instructs that courts contact VDDHH for interpreters and may be able to procure an interpreter on their own if VDDHH cannot find one. There is nothing to stop a court system from bypassing this all together and bringing in their own interpreter who may or may not be legally trained. The phrasing of this amendment only creates a loophole, bypassing the protections put in place that ensure a legally trained interpreter is scheduled. If a court has contacts with a local interpreter, they should encourage that interpreter to join the VDDHH service agreement. The service agreement is open to all ASL interpreters with valid credentials in Virginia. The courts referring an interpreter to the VDDHH service agreement would eliminate the perceived need for this proposed amendment.