I had the opportunity to address the Civil Subcommittee in person on 22 January, for which I'm grateful. Below is the rest of what I'd like to be entered into the record for HB140. This is more of a narrative as to why it has taken so many years to get to this point, without a final adoption taking place. I will try to give a short version of the criminal case, the custody case, and the wrongful death case involving Braulio Castillo. Criminal Case In March, 2014, Michelle Castillo was murdered. Her husband, Braulio Castillo, was arrested in April, 2014, and charged with first degree murder, B&E with the intent to commit murder, and violating a protective order (which had been granted in April, 2013, and upheld on appeal in Sept. 2013.) In June, 2016, Mr. Castillo was convicted on all three charges against him, and sentenced to life in prison. A final sentencing order was entered in December, 2016. In January, 2017, an appeal was filed at the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The CAV disposed of the case in June, 2019, affirming all Circuit Court decisions. In August, 2019, another appeal was filed at the Supreme Court of Virginia. This appeal was initially refused in Feb., 2020, and a rehearing was refused in August, 2020. In January, 2021, Mr. Castillo filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court, which was denied in February, 2021. Lastly, in August, 2021, Mr. Castillo filed a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Loudoun County Circuit Court. That case remains active, with little happening between August, 2022, and the present day.** The Custody Case In June, 2016, a separate trial was held in JDR Court regarding a custody case between Mr. Castillo and Loudoun County Dept. of Family Services. (The case began in 2014, but stayed until the criminal trial concluded.) This case involved the DFS decision (after Mrs. Castillo was killed) to remove the four minor children, led to the initial termination of Mr. Castillo's parental rights, and also assigned a goal of "adoption" to the foster care matter. In July, 2016, an appeal was filed in Loudoun Circuit Court. That de novo appeal did not conclude until September, 2017, with the Court ruling the removal, goal of adoption, and termination of parental rights was warranted. The custody case was appealed to CAV in September, 2017, and was disposed of in April, 2018, with all Circuit Court decisions affirmed. An appeal was then filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia, which was refused in August, 2018. In October, 2018, Loudoun DFS tried to initiate adoption proceedings for the four minor children, but the Guardian ad-Litem, and the County Attorney for Loudoun, both objected due to existing Virginia Law (it would sever the children's rights as beneficiaries). The Wrongful Death Case In March, 2016, a wrongful death action was filed by the oldest of the five children. Aside from changes in Counsel and a few motions, that suit has largely sat dormant. I'm unsure of the real reasons why, but have been told there was an agreement between the Court and the attorneys to not bring the case to trial until "all criminal appeals have been completed." ** I believe the Habeas case factors in to the "all criminal appeals" thought process, and there is no end in sight. In closing, I'd like to state for the record that we (the Meekers) are simply trying to achieve permanency as a family through adoption, not force movement in any particular Court case. HB140 enables that.

I am in support of this bill for the following reasons: Talking points. Alleviate the financial burden and sometimes financial devastation for the parties; particularly for the low wage earning spouse or the non working spouse. Fault based divorces may cause a breakdown in co-parenting and a breakdown in the family unit. Even though the family unit is dissolved legally, the family unit is still intact if there are children and grandchildren involved. Such allegations of a fault-based divorce are public record and can cause extreme embarrassment for the parties and if the parties have children, for the children as well. The embarrassment can be felt throughout the family structure and within society and professionally. When proving fault-based allegations such as cruelty, apprehension of bodily hurt, etc. exhibits/testimony are used. Examples of this may be inappropriate text messages, photos, allegations of abuse, even though not proven, which are all a part of a public record. Parties should be permitted to divorce without depleting their retirement and savings and leave their dignity intact. I've been practicing law since 2005 and I would say that in my experience, 85% of the divorces that are filed on fault based are granted a NO fault divorce. In addition, emotions run extremely high during the divorce process. The process of gathering evidence and proving fault-based divorces can lead to unsafe situations for a spouse which can include domestic violence and death. Thank you for your consideration, Shannon D. Lemm

Thank you for working to move this bill forward. I support HB 273 and hope this will pass. Our current standard 1 year waiting period for divorce serves to hold the financially disadvantaged party, most frequently the woman, in unhealthy, dangerous and abusive situations. It increases the overall cost of divorce for everyone and often leads to mothers being forced to accept unreasonable terms of settlement from their abuser as they cannot financially sustain the very expensive divorce process for a full year. Virginia is one of the most difficult states for women to get out of abusive marriages safely and eliminating this artificially extended waiting period is a good first step to improving the situation.

I am writing on behalf of the Public Policy Committee of the Virginia Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (VAELA). We provided these comments to Delegate Leftwich's office early this morning. • We think that 45 days’ notice is far too short for a beneficiary who has concerns about what they have received and wishes to seek legal counsel. Getting in the door for a consultation can take 6 weeks with many, reputable law firms. Not quite understanding the urgency this bill imposes on beneficiaries, we would suggest allowing beneficiaries 120 days. • We are unsure how this “jives” with the one-year statute of limitations set forth in 64.2-796. We are concerned that Section (B)(e) reduces from one year to forty-five days the SOL for trustees proceeding under the new proposed provisions. • The proposed additions seem to apply to both bad actors and good actors alike. For trustees who have been removed by the court, why shorten any time frame an aggrieved party might have to act? • It would also seem reasonable that an objection should contain a basis for said objection. • Fees, it seems, should not automatically be assessed to the trust estate.