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

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

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.

HB1455 It is imperative that this bill be passed. Too many people are dieing because of this illicit drug. Our future voters/leaders are being slaughtered by the makers and distributers of this drug. By any definition the making/distribution of this drug is a blantent act of domestic terrorism and should be dealt with accordingly. The only way to get this terrible drug epidemic stopped is to severely punish those that are manufacturing/ distributing this horrible, murderous drug. Please send a message to those that are manufacturing / distributing this horrible drug, that thier actions will not be tolerated. That society as a whole can not condone their actions. Please vote to move this bill forward..our children are suffering, with out your help many will not make it to adulthood. HB 1923 I don't understand how a minor has the mental capacity to refuse inpatient treatment for mental health issues. Is it not a parents/adult job to make decisions on behalf of minors? Minors can not vote, serve in the military or run for political office because we have determined that they do not have the mental capacity to do these things, yet they are allowed to determine whether they need to be admitted to an inpatient mental health facility. How is it that the current law gives a minor these rights and stripes the power away from the parents. As their parents it is our job to insure their future. Please give us the tools we need to do our job to the best of our ability. Move this bill forward, give our children the opportunity to become our future leaders. Thank you

My son was 10 days older than Makayla and as a parent I would want every tool available to me to provide him treatment if needed. Treatment could have prevented the tragic death of Makayla. There is a reason why you have to be 18 to vote, serve in the military, buy lottery tickets, get a tattoo, serve on jury duty, purchase spray paint, purchase cough syrup or create a will. I can add many other things to that list. The point is at 15 or 16 years old you may not have the capacity to consent. Give a parent the opportunity to seek treatment for their child. By taking away the parents rights, you are harming the child. We could have celebrated Makayla's 17th birthday with her two weeks ago in person. Instead, we celebrated Makayla's birthday with her family and friends with an urn in her seat at the restaurant.

Comments Document

I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with over 18 years of experience working with adolescents and adults wrestling with severe mental illness as well as substance use and addiction. I have worked with addiction and recovery from school to acute hospital settings. While I recognize the risk family members pose for individuals 14 and 15 year old and older trying to get self guided help for their identified issues, there are a larger number of interventions available to hold others responsible for wrongdoing if necessary. Developmentally, individuals ages 14 and 15 do not have the full capacity to make an insightful decision regarding their self care. According to Erik Erickson, Developmental Psychologist and pioneer of the 8 Psychosocial Stages Of Development, an individual ages 14-15 is still in the stage of "Identity Vs. Role Confusion". It is at this critical stage that individuals begin to develop a stronger sense of self and confidence in the decision making they have. It is also fair to say that a majority of professionals in this line of work would acknowledge that the impacts of trauma during this stage would lead to a strong sense of role confusion as the child has had a significant experience that has negatively impacted their ability to form a healthy identify and therefore make healthy decisions. With such a delay, it is imperative that the helpers and supporters of the child provide guidance in re-establishing a healthier sense of identity. None would argue that use of substances such as Fentanyl or even chronic alcohol or THC use would significantly impact the development of identity, if not be even deemed as traumatizing due to the significant mental impairment it brings. When combined with severe mental illness, the results could be catastrophic. It is during these times we as professionals, parents, and supporters need to assist the child in making healthy care decisions in order to return to a healthy self development. It is my professional opinion that HB 1923 be approved in order to provide parents access to the help and support thy need to find treatment and care for their children. It is then up to the treatment professionals to work and advocate for their identified client in order to achieve they healthiest level of functioning possible. HB1923 removes potentially fatal and life altering barriers to finding treatment for children in need. I can provide more examples and personal experiences wrestling to find help for individuals of this age with no success due to the false sense of empowerment afforded to those minors experiencing trauma and trauma inducing experiences with no guidance on healthy decision making.

I am in favor of this bill for so many reasons. My granddaughter, Makayla, was lost to the opioid and fentanyl epidemics plaguing our country a few short days after her 16th birthday. Makayla's mother discovered that Makayla, age 15, was experimenting with opioids in December 2021. She, as most parents would, sought treatment for her child at an in-patient facility. As Makayla discovered, she was able to refuse treatment. Less than six weeks later, Makayla was gone. Would treatment have prevented this loss? We will never know because at 15, Makayla was allowed to make such a critical, and as it turned out, life and death decision. It boggles my mind that at the age of 15, children cannot drive without permission from their parents. They must, by law, attend school. They are not allowed to vote, legally buy or use tobacco products or alcohol, or join the armed forces. Why? Because at 14 and 15 years of age they do not have the mental capacity to do so. However, by current standards, they can refuse treatment that, by doing so, could have life altering or in Makayla's case, life ending consequences. I plead with you to vote HB1923 into law. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hi

Good Afternoon Chair and Committee members, My name is Jennifer Spangler. I live with bipolar disorder and am an advocate for independence from family of origin because my father, whom I rarely speak to, can make changes to my treatment without a HIPPA release. Historically people with disabilities are likened to children. This stigma exists today. When it comes to mental health we know something is wrong before anyone else. Telling someone about that needs to be encouraged. For individuals like myself who don't have a safe home this is unhelpful. I understand the intent of this bill. But I will leave you with a few questions. 1) How many children in your district have you heard from on this issue. 2) How many children's testimony would it take for you to change your mind. 3) If keeping the child's concern in confidence could prevent suicide, would that change your mind. I am happy to have the chance to my daughter in a way more aligned with my beliefs. I came to that belief because I experienced harmful help growing up. As policymakers I hope you will begin to consider protecting the vulnerable children like myself who need allies but cannot find them at home.

I am Dr. Dimal Shah, a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist practicing in Richmond, VA. In order to become a child and adolescent psychiatrist, I completed four years of medical school, three years of adult psychiatry training, and two years of child and adolescent psychiatry training. I treat children and adolescents in a clinic setting, emergency room setting, and inpatient psychiatric hospital setting. I am here representing Psychiatric Society of Virginia to oppose House Bill 1923 because it limits the autonomy and hinders care of 14 and 15 year old patients seeking mental health care. I recently treated a 15 year old girl who came to the emergency room with severe depression and thoughts of suicide who recently cut herself several times with a knife. She wanted to get treatment in an acute inpatient psychiatric hospital. However, patient's mother did not agree this level of treatment. It turned out the mother did not know the severity of her daughter's depression and recent thoughts and actions. After engaging the patient in a therapeutic manner, she was willing to disclose the situation to her mother with me in the room. This was the first step in her treatment process - taking initiative to vocalize her thoughts and feelings to her parent. In psychiatric terms, this is behavioral activation, a therapeutic approach commonly used to treat depression. After this disclosure, the mother was completely onboard with hospitalization and the girl felt empowered by her actions and started to feel a sense of hope for her future. She was later admitted to an inpatient psychiatric hospital under voluntary status. If HB 1923 passes, patients 14-15 years old would not have the autonomy to seek out inpatient psychiatric treatment, which ultimately could lead to worsening suicide rates and more severe psychiatric illnesses when arriving to the emergency room for treatment. Those forced to enter inpatient psychiatric hospitalization against their will are more likely not to follow up with long term treatment, which may include medications and therapy. Thank you for your time.

In reference to bill HB1923 A minor child should not have the legal authority to determine whether or not they have to seek treatment. A child 14 years of age does not have the mental capacity to fully understand the impact on their health and well being. You are an adult when you are 18 years of age, you can vote, join our military etc. but it is a parent’s responsibility to house, feed, provide medical care to their children. As a mother I should have the right to seek treatment for my children. Whether it be for mental health reasons, drug abuse reason or so be it . If we allow children to refuse treatment we will sadly see more teen suicides, accidental drugging from prescription medication and sadly passing away do to this fentanyl epidemic we are currently facing in this country. Untreated mental health problems disrupt children’s functioning at home, with friends and in school. Allowing our children to refuse treatment, for mental health issues puts them at an increased risk of school failure, substance abuse and even suicide. Parents should not have to get courts involved to seek treatment for a child who is struggling. How many teen suicides and accidental overdoses do we need to face before a change is made.

A big part of our foundations goal is not only to bring awareness to the dangers of Fentanyl, but to change the laws regarding a teens right to refuse treatment for drug abuse and use. Had this law been different, Makayla would still be with us today. My sister tried so hard to get her into a treatment facility to gain her help regarding pill use, drugs use, etc. Makayla had the right to refuse and so she did. Three short weeks later she took a pill she thought was Percocet but was in fact 100% Fentanyl. This needs to change to save these young peoples lives.

In reference to HB1923, a person is not considered a legal adult until the age of 18. They are not able to live on their own, unless legally emancipated, they cannot vote, join the military, etc. Currently, laws allow children age 14 and above to be able to make adult decisions regarding their mental health and substance abuse treatment, yet legally they are not an adult. Children under the age of 18 are not mentally and emotionally to be able to state whether they have a mental health and:or substance abuse problem requiring help or admission to a clinic. Children in this age range believe “that will never happen to me” and perceive they are invincible. Yet, they are allowed to deny themselves the help that could be needed. If it wasn’t for this law, I would have been able to have my daughter admitted for mental health and substance abuse at age 15. However a short month and a half after discovering a substance abuse issue, I walked in to her room to find her dead in her bed, 2 weeks after her 16th birthday. Children are not equipped to make these life altering decisions. And we should not be preventing parents and healthcare from providing it to them!

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

HB 2103 is a horrifying bill that does nothing except shunt people back into jails and prisons. It removes judicial discretion for whether or not a suspended sentence should be revoked, meaning that judges can no longer use their more nuanced understanding of the circumstances and personalities to craft a reasonable and just decision. Perhaps most frightening is the addition of subsection (G) to § 19.2-306, which defines what a “technical violation” is in the most draconian ways. Without doubt, this will end up with otherwise model probationers being tripped up by technicalities that then cost them their freedom. The most concerning of these are the nebulous ones that provide no objective criteria for ensuring compliance, e.g., “(ii) maintain regular employment. . .;” or “(ix) a good behavior violation that did not result in a criminal conviction.” We urge the committee to vote “No” on this bill.

Good morning members of the General Assembly: The purpose for this comment is for your support in passing Delegate Shin's HB 2040. Correctional officers serve a vital role in public safety by maintaining custody, control and accountability of sentenced offenders assigned to their care. The introduction of contraband and other criminal activities compromises security operations and places correctional officers at risk for possible assault from the offender population. Please support HB 2040 because it serves as a deterrent for violators while protect the sworn correctional officer whose in the performance of his/her duties.

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

Hi