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.

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.

I support this as a way of getting porn out of the hands of kids and them learning academic subjects to build up this country.

HB1916 - this fixes problems when boards don't act HB2272 - this will help African Americans (and possibly other minorities too) that should they need to go on to other educational institutions to finish training/education, they don't have a huge debt already from undergrad and therefore be less financially burdened when they become employed in their field. HB2425 - Good idea.

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.

Please Vote YES on HB2252. This makes the Magistrate system more responsive for training and accountability. Having had a few encounters with Magistrates on behalf of accused individuals with special needs, the system lacks any sort of document tracking system (they do not keep records). this will allow for the legal oversight of a key entry piece into the justice system.

I am Lawrence Diehl, attorney who has practiced family law for 48 years and for around 20 years served on the Child Support Quadrennial Review Committee, serving for some years with Del. Leftwich. I oppose hb2290 for the following reasons: 1. We already passed last year Code sec. 20-108.2(D1) which sufficiently protects a birth mother for the recovery of pregnancy expenses. We don’t need this bill 2. Child support by statute and years of case law cannot be ordered retroactively prior to the “filing” of a petition for child support. See 20-108.1(B) This bill is inconsistent with our decades of law and attempts to permit support PRIOR to the date of filing- back to the date of conception. 20-108.1(B) prohibits this- it just can’t be done by law. 3. Paying bereavement costs and wage reimbursements to a mother based on % of TOTAL wages based on guideline %s as now amended - still is a de facto spousal support payment - payments not limited to just a child support computation but based on GROSS wages. These payments between unmarried parties for the benefit of the mother since this is for her above child support- is in substance in the form of spousal support. This has never been permitted in the history of Virginia law unless parties are married. By allowing such support this will be, for the first time in Virginia history - support for an adult by unmarried parties- again, clearly in the nature of spousal support. This could reverse decades of Virginia law on this issue contradicting our public policy of only permitting such support between married parties. 4. The implementation of the bill will be inconsistent between court ordered support and the voluminous administrative orders issued by the DCSE. I have spoken with Craig Burshem of DSS and he indicates DCSE workers, many of whom are not attorneys, would not be considering the expenses provided by this bill/ they will only be doing the basic guideline calculation That is not fair. There should not be two separate standards used- one by a judge in court and one by the DCSE. The inconsistency of results in child support orders this bill would create is unfair. 5. This bill is actually a back door effort by the administration to declare a fetus as a person or child. The award of support to a fetus from date of conception raises serious constitutional issues of when life begins. And if pregnancy expenses can already be awarded now per our statute passed last year, what extra expenses are needed by a fetus? Why is “child” support even needed for fetus when a fetus does not need clothes, food, educational costs- none of the elements for which child support is based. Clearly this bill is a very veiled attempt to provide precedence to declare a fetus as an actual person being a “child”. Virginia should categorically reject such an attempt. I ask that hb2290 be defeated. Thank you and if anyone needs to call me on this - my cell phone is 804-763-9631.

HB 2290 contains some very weird provisions. For example, some parents would have to pay more than their entire income in child support. If the father is making the minimum wage and the mother is unemployed, he would have to pay her for "paid maternity leave" at "the minimum wage if the mother is unemployed." So he would be paying her for family leave at the same wage he himself is getting. He would have to do that while also paying other forms of child support as well: He would also have to pay her nine months retroactive child support based on his monthly income, back to the "date of conception," in addition to "pregnancy" and "delivery" expenses, and pay current child support based on his monthly income, pursuant to Va. Code § 20-108.2(B), and also for various other expenses, see, e.g., Va. Code § 20-108.2(E). (The original version of the bill required the "legal father" to pay "least 50 percent" of all these expenses, but the revised bill apparently mandates payment "in proportion to the parents' gross incomes," which would mean the father would bear 100% of the expenses in this example). Such a requirement will backfire and harm custodial parents. When fathers are ordered to pay obviously unpayable amounts, they give up, and pay less, resulting in custodial parents getting less, according to child support officials. See Office of Child Support Enforcement, Family and State Benefits of Debt Compromise, August 18, 2022 (available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/family-and-state-benefits-debt-compromise) ("Parents who owe large child support debts are more likely to become discouraged and leave formal employment, further compromising their ability to support their children. This is partly because up to 65 percent of disposable income can be withheld from the paychecks of nonresident parents owing arrears...This high withholding rate can have the unintended effect of pushing low-wage parents out of a job, because the remaining paycheck is often too little to survive on. Child support debt can lead to increased job-hopping, participation in the underground economy, and generation of illegal income as parents try to support themselves and their children and avoid the child support program."); Yvonne Wenger, Maryland Should Overhaul Child Support System and How Payments Are Set, Abell Foundation Says, Baltimore Sun, June 18, 2019 (citing a study, and quoting a former federal child-support chief and a women's advocate) . The bill would also require many fathers to bear more than the actual costs of the child, further increasing the risk that they will be unable to pay. The father would have to pay both "pregnancy" and "delivery" expenses, and 9 months retroactive monthly child support based on his income back to the "date of conception." But the only actual child-related expenses during pregnancy are for "pregnancy" and "delivery," so for the bill to also require monthly child support under Va. Code § 20-108.2(B) back to the "date of conception" results in the father having to pay twice for the same expenses, once as "pregnancy" and "delivery" expenses, and then again as retroactive monthly child support.

Please vote NO on HB2290, which contains extreme provisions.

We completely favor a robust child support program, but we fear that HB 2290 will harm rather than help children. In Virginia, as in most other states, massive uncollectible arrearages have accumulated because a “more is better” impulse has imposed unsustainably high burdens on child support obligors. See, e.g., the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) guidance at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/family-and-state-benefits-debt-compromise and the report by Vicky Turetsky, former head of OCSE at https://abell.org/publication/reforming-child-support/. Excessive child support obligations lead to defaults which lead to sanctions like loss of driver’s licenses which lead to loss of employment which leads to even less ability to pay and destroys the relationship between parent and child. HB 2290, we are sure, is offered with good intentions, but it is solely a “more is better” proposal with absolutely no analysis of its impact on ability to pay. Payment of pregnancy expenses is mandated without reference to availability of medical insurance. HB 2290 even demands reimbursement to the government if government funds helped pay for the pregnancy. HB 2290 also mandates payment of maternity leave. HB 2290 also mandates payment of child support from the date of conception before there is a born child in need of support which is a pure “double-dipping” on top of the payment of pregnancy expenses. HB 2290 also mandates payment of bereavement leave. All of these are on top of the existing child support obligations in Virginia which already cause the massive accumulation of uncollectible arrearages as described above and at the links provided. HB 2290 will cause severe disruption to thousands of families by imposing impossible burdens and magnifying the negative consequences of a system that already generates uncollectible arrearages by imposing unsustainably high burdens on obligors. Respectfully submitted, S. Horning For The Boys Initiative

*Please ignore my initial comment and instead refer to this corrected version This bill is discriminatory, unfair, biased, and should go no further than this subcommittee. This bill is badly drafted and not written in a gender-neutral fashion. The existing child support guidelines are gender-neutral, and don't single out "the legal father.” But this bill allows a second parent to avoid responsibility, unless the second parent is a man. Sometimes a child has two mothers, yet this bill does not take that into consideration. The bill states “in the case of assisted conception, the donor shall not be considered the legal father.” This means “the legal father” is required to pay support for prenatal periods, and at least 50 percent of paid leave, but a second mother never does, even if that mother was directly involved in the conception of the child. The bill makes "the legal father" pay for "at least 50 percent" of the equivalent of 60 business days paid leave to the mother even when (1) the mother isn't taking any leave from her job, and/or (2) the father plays an equal or greater role in raising the child (such as if father is on leave or can work from home), and/or (3) the mother was unemployed, and thus is not on leave from any job, and thus isn't losing any income, or (4) the father makes far less than the mother. And this is on top of any child support the father would owe under existing law. The mother is already getting paid maternity leave. That is unfair. Why should an unmarried father have to pay for such leave that costs the mother nothing? A married father has no such responsibility. Whether married or unmarried, a father is a father and should have equal rights. There should not be discrimination against an unmarried father, which this bill allows for.

HB 2290 appears to result in double-dipping of expenses, resulting in an unfair windfall to the mother at the expense of the father. The mother could get paid twice for the same pregnancy-related expenses, or get paid for both daycare and family leave at the very same time. It also contains gender-based double standards. Va. Code 20-108.2(D)(1) already awards child support for "unpaid expenses of the mother's pregnancy and the delivery of such child." But the bill uses the existence of those same pregnancy expenses to make "the legal father" pay monthly child support for all 9 months of pregnancy, all the way back to the "date of conception," on top of any expenses awarded under Va. Code 20-108.2(D)(1) or elsewhere. Existing law already awards child support for daycare expenses (Va. Code 20-108.2(F)). But the bill would let mothers collect child support for a monetary value "equivalent" to 60 business days of family leave, even if they aren't taking leave, but are working, and as a result, the father has been ordered to pay daycare expenses. So a mother could collect both daycare expenses for the infant, and the value of the family leave she isn't even taking. It could also result in fathers being ordered to pay for the value of family leave the mother will never take and doesn't need, such as where the father or others are caring for the child. The comment by Family Reunion is right to say that "The bill makes 'the legal father' pay for 'at least 50 percent' of the equivalent of 60 business days paid leave to the mother even when (1) the mother isn't taking any leave from her job, and/or (2) the father plays an equal or greater role in raising the child (such as if father is on leave or can work from home), and/or (3) the mother was unemployed, and thus is not on leave from any job, and thus isn't losing any income, or (4) the father makes far less than the mother. And this is on top of any child support the father would owe under existing law." (Family Reunion might be mistaken, though, to say mother can collect both from the "employer and...from the legal father," because the bill has language later on about things "already .... reimbursed by an employer." But it's not clear, because that language follows the requirement to pay monthly child support from "the date of conception" under Va. Code 20-108.2, rather than the earlier requirement to award family leave expenses. As Family Reunion points out, this is a "badly-drafted bill"). As another comment rightly points out, this bill "would also create a family leave obligation for only fathers, not mothers. It would create big uncollectible child-support arrearages, and also be unfair to fathers by making them pay for the value of family leave the mother isn't even taking, and pay for the value of family leave even when the mother isn't losing a dime of income, and pay for the value of family leave even when the father is raising the kid. It would lead to huge retroactive child support arrearages by ordering child support back to 'the date of conception.' Fathers would suddenly become liable for 9 months extra child support during pregnancy. Not even states that are pro-life or restrict abortion do this, because [monthly] child support isn't designed for prenatal expenses," but rather is "based on the estimated cost of raising kids who are already born."

This bill is discriminatory, unfair, biased, and should go no further than this subcommittee. This bill is badly drafted and not written in a gender-neutral fashion. The existing child support guidelines are gender-neutral, and don't single out "the legal father.” But this bill allows a second parent to avoid responsibility, unless the second parent is a man. Sometimes a child has two mothers, yet this bill does not take that into consideration. The bill states “in the case of assisted conception, the donor shall not be considered the legal father.” This means “the legal father” is required to pay support for prenatal periods, and at least 50 percent of paid leave, but a second mother never does, even if that mother was directly involved in the conception of the child. The bill makes "the legal father" pay for "at least 50 percent" of the equivalent of 60 business days paid leave to the mother even when (1) the mother isn't taking any leave from her job, and/or (2) the father plays an equal or greater role in raising the child (such as if father is on leave or can work from home), and/or (3) the mother was unemployed, and thus is not on leave from any job, and thus isn't losing any income, or (4) the father makes far less than the mother. And this is on top of any child support the father would owe under existing law. The mother is already getting paid maternity leave. This is like double-dipping--first from her employer and second from the legal father. That is unfair. Why should an unmarried father have to pay for such leave that costs the mother nothing? A married father has no such responsibility. Whether married or unmarried, a father is a father and should have equal rights. There should not be discrimination against an unmarried father, which this bill allows for.

Please vote NO on HB 2290, a badly-worded bill that imposes child support from "the date of conception" and would also create a family leave obligation for only fathers, not mothers. It would create big uncollectible child-support arrearages, and also be unfair to fathers by making them pay for the value of family leave the mother isn't even taking, and pay for the value of family leave even when the mother isn't losing a dime of income, and pay for the value of family leave even when the father is raising the kid. It would lead to huge retroactive child support arrearages by ordering child support back to "the date of conception." Fathers would suddenly become liable for 9 months extra child support during pregnancy. Not even states that are pro-life or restrict abortion do this, because child support isn't designed for prenatal expenses. State child-support guidelines are based on the estimated cost of raising kids who are already born. Many parents simply could not afford to pay nine additional months of retroactive child support, which would be thousands of dollars they would suddenly owe on top of, and in addition to, the thousands of dollars they already need to pay in child support under existing law. The bill is also unfair, because it orders fathers to pay the mother the value of 60 business days of family leave even if the father is taking care of the kid, or the mother isn't on family leave, or won't use the money for family leave, or the father is poorer than the mother. HB 2290 requires "the legal father" to pay "at least 50 percent of the equivalent of the mother's paid maternity leave," but that is not the actual cost of leave to the mother, or the amount of leave she is actually using. Instead, "'Paid maternity leave' means the equivalent of 60 business days at the mother's hourly wage if the mother is employed, or the minimum wage if the mother is unemployed, for eight hours per day for a total of 480 hours." So even if the father is taking care of the kid, he can be ordered to pay the mother the value of maternity leave, even if she is not paying any costs, and maybe even if she wouldn't take maternity leave even given the opportunity. For example, the mother gets to collect the value of paid maternity leave, even if she isn't taking leave, because she was unemployed and thus isn't losing income. Sometimes, it is the dad who is responsible for much of the child care of an infant, like when he can work from home or has access to family leave from his employer. When that's true, it's wrong to order him to pay the mother for paid maternity leave. That's especially true when the mother isn't on leave from a job, such as if she is unemployed for reasons unrelated to childbirth, and is being supported by well-to-do family members. Or if she wouldn't take leave anyway, such as for reasons of career advancement. If a new mother has daycare expenses from working after giving birth, the father can already be ordered to pay those daycare expenses as child support under existing law, and the current child-support guidelines, without any need for this bill. But the mother shouldn't be able to collect BOTH daycare expenses AND the value of family leave she isn't even using from the father -- that would be like having your cake and eating it, too. The father shouldn't be ordered to pay both real AND imaginary expenses.

This bill creates gender-based obligations, which seems unconstitutional. Doesn't that violate the Supreme Court's decision in Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979), which ruled that support obligations can't be based on gender? The bill is also unfair, because it orders fathers to pay money for family leave even when the mother isn't actually on leave, and orders fathers to pay money for periods when the mother doesn't actually have any child-rearing costs, such as early in her pregnancy. The bill creates gender-based obligations. Under the bill, "the legal father" is ordered to pay "child support" "beginning at the date of conception" and including "at least 50 percent of the equivalent of the mother's paid maternity leave." But a mother has no such obligation, ever, under the bill, even if the child has two mothers, and regardless of whether the second mother is a transgender mother who provided the sperm for the conception, or a cisgender mother who didn't give birth, but who agreed to the pregnancy via assisted conception. The bill states, "For the purposes of this section, in the case of assisted conception, the donor shall not be considered the legal father. " So a father who didn't give birth to the child has the obligation to pay support, but a mother who didn't give birth to the child doesn't (even if the legal mother is a transgender mother who was involved in conception, either through intercourse prior to her "sex change" or through use of sperm collected and stored prior to the gender transition). This qualifies as sex discrimination for purposes of the Constitution and federal law. (See the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020)). The bill makes fathers pay for family leave even when the mother isn't on family leave, such as if she was not employed, and thus didn't lose any income from the birth of the child. It requires the father to pay "at least 50 percent of the equivalent of the mother's paid maternity leave," even if the mother isn't taking any leave, or even "if the mother is unemployed" and thus is not sacrificing income to take care of the child. That seems unfair. The bill makes fathers pay for "child support ... beginning at the date of conception of the infant." But while life may begin at conception, child-rearing costs don't. Most expenses related to children begin near the time of birth, not conception. During the earliest stages of pregnancy, women often don't know they are pregnant, much less incur costs from being pregnant. One in three women only learn they are pregnant after six weeks. Unborn children don't incur daycare expenses or use up diapers. The bill makes fathers pay for child support under the Virginia child-support guidelines, Va. Code Section "20-108.2," but that guideline was developed based on the major cost of raising children who are already born, not the minor cost of nurturing a growing fetus or accommodating a body changing due to pregnancy -- like a mother eating a bit more as the unborn child grows, or buying maternity clothing. The total cost of my unborn daughter prior to her birth, for all 9 months, was less than $200 (prenatal vitamins + 3 pairs of cheap pants + 1 body pillow + maternity pantyhose + a few boxes of Eggo waffles due to increased appetite at breakfast time). By contrast, child support for a household with our income would be well over $1000 per month under Virginia's child support schedule, just for one child.

This bill unjustly discriminates based on sex and marital status. It would order the father to pay for the value of paid maternity leave that the mother is already getting at no cost from her employer, when the father is already paying child support to support the child. The bill would order the father to pay at least 50% of the value of paid maternity leave -- even though that leave costs the mother nothing because it is paid leave, so she doesn't need to be reimbursed for it. This could result in fathers being ordered to pay thousands of dollars beyond what they can afford. For example, I had months of paid maternity leave after I gave birth to our daughter. That was worth many thousands of dollars. I didn't expect my husband to pay me for that leave, which cost me nothing. So I don't see why an unmarried father should have to pay for such leave that costs the mother nothing to use. A married father has no such responsibility, and doesn't have to pay the mother for paid leave that she is getting at no cost. Why should an unmarried father have greater obligations than a married father? All parents have an equal duty to take care of their kids, regardless of marital status. The bill also allows men, but not women, to be ordered to pay more than half of childbirth and family leave expenses. The "father," because of his gender, has to pay "at least" 50 percent of these expenses under the bill -- potentially more than 50%, but never less. That's unfair and discriminatory, especially when the father has a lower income than the mother.

Comments Document

I am following up on my prior letter in opposition to HB2291, which has been reset for hearing today in the subcommittee. I am attaching the response I received over the summer from the Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS). The email from the Department was in response to my request for the number of infants relinquished each year under Virginia's current safe haven law, from 2004 through the present. Mr. Ross, the VDSS Director of Compliance, responded by stating "You are seeking information which is not gathered nor maintained by VDSS. I know of no other Virginia state agency that has and maintains the data you seek." As stated in my previous letter in opposition, the State of Virginia operates in the dark on the prevalence of safe haven abandonments and what happens to legally abandoned infants. HB2291 will only exacerbate that problem through fast-track direct placement of safe haven infants for adoption, including those abandoned anonymously through baby boxes built into the walls of fire stations and hospitals. The state will have no genuine mechanism to understand the scope of this issue and whether baby boxes and safe haven abandonment laws are even effective for their alleged purpose. I ask for a no vote on this bill.

Comments Document

Dear Chairman Campbell and Members of the Committee: I am an attorney who represents adult adopted people throughout the United States. I am considered a national expert on issues related to adoptee rights, whether those relate to identity documents, sealed records, birth certificates, or to adult intercountry adoptees who are without U.S. citizenship. I write to oppose HB2291 as introduced. I take no specific position on the overall merits of Virginia’s current newborn safe haven law, other than to note that, as stated in a recent article from experts on this issue, “safe havens operate not as a system for protecting newborns but rather as a tool for separating vulnerable parents from their children.” See, “Wildly Inconsistent Safe Haven Laws Put Surrendered Infants, Parents at Risk,” available at https://www.governing.com/now/wildly-inconsistent-safe-haven-laws-put-surrendered-infants-parents-at-risk I oppose HB2291 for two very specific reasons: 1. Virginia continues to fail, on a state-wide level, to collect any information on the number of infants relinquished under its safe haven law. As such, there is no easily available data to determine the prevalence of safe haven relinquishments, whether they are increasing or decreasing, and whether safe haven policies have had any impact on the stated reason for legal anonymous infant abandonment programs in the first place: to reduce or avoid infant deaths. No data exists to examine if the program is successful in its purpose or is, more likely, simply leading to increased anonymous abandonment of infants for adoption. If any data exists, it is held separately by the 134+ county or local boards of social services responsible for abandoned safe haven infants. 2. HB2291 proposes that safe haven abandoned infants be placed immediately with adoption agencies, typically within 24 hours of abandonment. The bill, however, contains no provisions to protect against corruption and trafficking. Instead, the law—combined with a lack of any state-wide data reporting, analysis, or collection—can be easily exploited to hide trafficking in infants for adoption. In particular, newborn safety devices, which now under Virginia law allow anonymous and impersonal abandonments by sliding an infant through a building wall, will allow facilitators and child traffickers to use these safety devices as a way to circumvent adoption laws and regulations, with the result that adoption agencies on a local “rotating list” will benefit, primarily through elimination of any need to deal with birthparents and legal relinquishments associated with infant adoption. This bill, if enacted, would set the stage for corrupt practices that the state will have no ability to see, let alone track or analyze. For these reasons, I request that the committee vote NAY on HB2291. Best regards, ADOPTEE RIGHTS LAW CENTER PLLC /s/ Gregory D. Luce Attorney and Founder

I agree with this bill. Please pass it.

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.