The Va. Family Law Coalition supports this bill.

Please vote NO on SB805, which would increase already excessive child-support obligations. People already paying half or more of their income in child support just can't afford to pay more. Requiring them to do would violate 45 CFR § 302.56(c)(1). There are already thousands of working-class and low-income parents who pay more than half their income in child support -- Between the basic child support calculated under Virginia Code § 20-108.2(B), and additional child support amounts imposed under other statutory provisions like § 20-108.2(F) & § 20-108.2(E). For example, the child support obligation under Virginia's child support guidelines was $667 per month for a father making only $1300 per month, in Herring v. Herring, 33 Va. App. 281 (2000). Even though he only had two kids, the child support guidelines mandated that he pay most of his income in child support. That father, John Herring, would owe even more today, due to the increase in child support obligations the Virginia legislature already passed in 2014, as HB933. And his obligations would increase even further under SB805 -- resulting in child support consuming the lion's share of his income. Parents like that cannot afford to pay anymore than they are now. They certainly can't do it and still support themselves. But SB805 would make them pay even more. Maybe a decade ago a legislature could get away with doing that. But now, passing such harsh legislation could be risky for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services adopted 45 CFR § 302.56(c)(1), which requires state child-support guidelines to not impose child-support obligations that exceed the noncustodial parent's “ability to pay”, and tells states to account for “the basic subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent.” SB805 violates that regulation. Complying with that regulation is presumably a condition of federal funds. So ignoring it could cost the state money. Instead of passing SB805, the legislature should amend the child-support guidelines to include a self-support reserve for low-income parents, as states like Maryland and Tennessee do. That way, Virginia would comply with the federal requirement to take into account a noncustodial parent's "ability to pay" and "basic subsistence needs."

Please oppose SB 805 for the following reasons: - States as diverse as California and Nebraska have REDUCED their child support guidelines in recent years in recognition of the fact that the "More is Better" mentality of the past is counterproductive. - Setting child support too high as SB 805 does, especially for low income obligors, only increases uncollectible arrearages and wastes state enforcement budgets in chasing money that does not exist so that "deadbroke" obligors become homeless, jobless and unable to pay anything. - SB 805 ignores Federal regulations (45 CFR § 302.56(c)(1)) by failing to establish a self support reserve for obligors and by setting support above the obligor's actual ability to pay. - SB805 is inaccurate. Child support calculators do not come close to accurately factoring in actual income that low-income payees receive. Consider a hypothetical family in which both parents share parenting time equally, spend similarly on food and housing, and make similar, low incomes. However, family court only allows for a single custodial parent, which automatically entitles that one parent to the additional cash benefits — ultimately resulting in the recipient's income being nearly twice as high as the other parent's.

Please reject SB805. 1. SB805 makes no common sense. While Surovell argues it helps child support to keep up with inflation, the current calculator already does that. SB805 double-dips, hurting families. For example, today, a payor with two children whose earnings grow 25% from $2,000 to $2,500 in income due to inflation (or any other reason) automatically sees his payment rise from $527 to $626. SB805’s double-dip penalty would increase this payment to $710 — a 35% increase! 2. SB805 Hurts women as much as it hurts men. As the gender pay gap closes for all demographics — especially for younger workers (of parenting age) and low-income people — today wives in heterosexual marriages earn equal or more than their husbands in 45% of marriages. These egregious support increases will hit women’s bank accounts nearly as much as men’s. However, others increasingly recognize that sharing the responsibilities of child care are more valuable to herself and her children than dollars from their kids’s dad — especially since those dollars come with drama and conflict. More dollars = more drama. Women aren’t stupid. Neighboring states NC and MD join the rest of the country in right-sizing child support to make it more fair and promote more harmonious co-parenting. SB805 pushes VA in the wrong direction.

Subject: Please Oppose SB805 Child Support I am a Virginia resident and serve as the Child Support Analyst for Family Reunion, a national nonprofit dedicated to ensuring children benefit from two active parents. On behalf of Family Reunion, I urge you to oppose SB805 for the following reasons: 1) Premature Legislation – The legislatively created Child Support Guideline Commission has not completed its assessment or made recommendations. SB805 bypasses this crucial process, undermining thorough review. 2) Unsustainable Increases – The bill drastically raises child support obligations when the current guidelines are already too high, particularly for low-income parents. Virginia’s enforcement measures, including driver’s license suspensions and imprisonment, are already among the harshest in the nation. Increasing these obligations will only exacerbate economic instability in particularly low-income minority populations. 3) Violates Federal Law – SB805 fails to account for the "subsistence needs" of obligors and lacks a "self-support reserve," violating federal mandates that limit child support to an obligor’s ability to pay (45 C.F.R. 302.56(c)). Without a self-support reserve, obligors risk being driven into homelessness, creating an even greater crisis. 4) Double Dipping Inflation Adjustments – The bill includes a "double dip" in increasing support obligations, as inflation already moves the obligor into a higher bracket within the existing guideline. SB805 unfairly raises amounts at each level, creating an excessive financial burden. 5) Ignores Custodial Household Income – The formula disregards substantial financial benefits received by custodial parents, such as child tax credits, TANF, SNAP, housing assistance, EITC, and Medicaid. This results in an unfair standard of living disparity, where low-income obligors must pay into a household that may already have significantly more resources. 6) Out of Sync with Neighboring States– Unlike Maryland, Tennessee, and North Carolina, Virginia lacks a "self-support reserve" for low-income obligors. SB805 increases the disparity, making compliance even more difficult for struggling parents. 7) Impossible Compliance for Low-Income Parents – The bill layers childcare and health insurance costs on top of already excessive basic support, making it nearly impossible for low-income parents to comply. The result will be a higher number of parents caught in a cycle of enforcement penalties, job loss, and incarceration, which ultimately harms the children the system is intended to support. 8) Counterproductive Nationwide Trends – Excessively high child support obligations have been shown to be counterproductive. When support is set beyond a parent’s ability to pay, compliance drops, leading to enforcement cycles that sever parent-child relationships. A parent who is ordered to pay too much enters an enforcement cycle (license suspensions, occupational license revocations, imprisonment for "contempt"), which ultimately drives the obligor into unemployment and homelessness. This results in children losing both financial support and meaningful relationships with their parents. SB805 moves Virginia in the wrong direction and exacerbates existing challenges within the child support system. Sincerely, Karen Renee Merwin Director of Policy Family Reunion USA www.familyreunionUSA.org 386-679-6093

Emma Johnson 646-346-4751 Please oppose SB805, which hurts children, mothers, fathers and costs the state. It is also wildly out-of-touch with voter sentiment. Why? 1. SB805 hurts kids. Studies find unaffordable child support in general has been found to increase conflict between co-parents and deter father-child relationships. Strong father involvement has been found by hundreds of excellent studies (and common sense) to improve nearly all metrics of lifelong outcomes: mental and physical health, academic and professional achievement, relationship health and more. Higher child support = more parent conflict = worse child outcomes. 2. SB805 is just inaccurate. Child support calculators do not come close to accurately factoring in actual income low-income payees/mothers receive. A hypothetical family in which both parents share parenting time equally, spend similarly on food and housing, and make similar, low incomes. However, family court only allows for a single custodial parent, which automatically entitles that parent (the mom in this scenario) to the following cash benefits — ultimately resulting in the mom's income being nearly twice the dad's [see attached]: 5. SB805 Hurts women as much as it hurts men. As the gender pay gap closes for all demographics — especially for younger workers (of parenting age) and low-income people — today wives in heterosexual marriages earn equal or more than their husbands in 45% of marriages. 84% of Black mothers are breadwinners. These egregious support increases will hit women’s bank accounts nearly as much as men’s. However, mothers increasingly recognize that sharing the responsibilities of child care are more valuable to herself and her children than dollars from their kids’s dad — especially since those dollars come with drama and conflict. More dollars = more drama. Women aren’t stupid. 6. SB805 exasperates a broken child support system. In Virginia and throughout the country, arrears are at a record-high and the percentage of parents applying for child support is down 36% over the past 20 years. The most recent Census survey found: *39% of mothers who qualified for child support but did not apply did so because "the father already pays" *34% said the dad "couldn't afford to pay more" Emma Johnson 646-346-4751 Single moms in 2025 — most of whom are low-income — opt for a fair, child-centered agreements outside of family court. This is in keeping with the growing trend of equal and shared co-parenting and more father involvement — all positive momentum this bill will torpedo. SB805 moves Virginia in the wrong direction. Thank you for doing the right thing by the 215,000 Virginia households in which parents live separately.

Please oppose SB805, which hurts children, mothers, fathers and costs the state. It is also wildly out-of-touch with voter sentiment. Why? 1. SB805 hurts kids. Studies find unaffordable child support in general has been found to increase conflict between co-parents and deter father-child relationships. Strong father involvement has been found by hundreds of excellent studies (and common sense) to improve nearly all metrics of lifelong outcomes: mental and physical health, academic and professional achievement, relationship health and more. Higher child support = more parent conflict = worse child outcomes. 2. SB805 is just inaccurate. Child support calculators do not come close to accurately factoring in actual income low-income payees/mothers receive. A hypothetical family in which both parents share parenting time equally, spend similarly on food and housing, and make similar, low incomes. However, family court only allows for a single custodial parent, which automatically entitles that parent (the mom in this scenario) to the following cash benefits — ultimately resulting in the mom's income being nearly twice the dad's [see attached]: 5. SB805 Hurts women as much as it hurts men. As the gender pay gap closes for all demographics — especially for younger workers (of parenting age) and low-income people — today wives in heterosexual marriages earn equal or more than their husbands in 45% of marriages. 84% of Black mothers are breadwinners. These egregious support increases will hit women’s bank accounts nearly as much as men’s. However, mothers increasingly recognize that sharing the responsibilities of child care are more valuable to herself and her children than dollars from their kids’s dad — especially since those dollars come with drama and conflict. More dollars = more drama. Women aren’t stupid. 6. SB805 exasperates a broken child support system. In Virginia and throughout the country, arrears are at a record-high and the percentage of parents applying for child support is down 36% over the past 20 years. The most recent Census survey found: *39% of mothers who qualified for child support but did not apply did so because "the father already pays" *34% said the dad "couldn't afford to pay more" Single moms in 2025 — most of whom are low-income — opt for a fair, child-centered agreements outside of family court. This is in keeping with the growing trend of equal and shared co-parenting and more father involvement — all positive momentum this bill will torpedo. SB805 moves Virginia in the wrong direction. Thank you for doing the right thing by the 215,000 Virginia households in which parents live separately.

Please reject SB 805 unless it is amended to comply with the federal child-support regulation, 45 CFR § 302.56(c)(1) . That regulation says child-support obligations should not be bigger than a noncustodial parent's "ability to pay" and should accommodate “the basic subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent.” SB805 violates that regulation by increasing the child support obligations of parents making only the minimum wage, such as those who have only found part-time minimum-wage work and thus make so little money they can barely support themselves, much less pay the increased amounts mandated by SB 805. SB 805 increases the basic child-support obligation of parents whose combined income is as little as $550 per month. Obviously, such parents cannot afford any increase at all. A custodial parent with a very low income may be able to eke out survival with government aid (such as earned-income tax credits and housing subsidies), but a noncustodial parent usually get no government assistance and thus needs to keep the bulk of what he earns just to survive. The bill includes no self-support reserve for noncustodial parents (unlike the child-support guidelines of Maryland or Tennessee) and imposes harsh child support obligations on parents whose combined income is less than $1300 per month (unlike neighboring North Carolina, Maryland, and Tennessee). The bill should be amended to allow low-income noncustodial parents to keep enough of their earnings to survive. To a middle-class legislator, the amounts contained in SB805 may not seem like that much. But to a poor person, they are simply unaffordable. There are already huge amounts of child support arrearages in Virginia because poor parents simply can't pay what they are ordered to pay. Many arrearages exist because parents are very poor and simply can't pay what they are ordered to pay despite their best efforts -- the Baltimore Sun reported that most of Maryland's child-support arrearages were from parents with very low-incomes, like $7,350, in an article at this link: https://archive.ph/jE9R0 Moreover, the obligations contained in SB 805's child support schedule are just the beginning of what poor parents to pay. They are often ordered to pay more based on "imputed income" they don't even make. And "the basic child support" obligation increased by SB805 is just part of the overall obligation. For example, the overall child support obligation was more than twice the "basic child support" obligation in the court of appeals' decision in Herring v. Herring, 532 S.E.2d 923 (2000). Under the child-support guidelines, the father was supposed to pay $673 in monthly child support on his monthly income of just $1,300, for just two kids, back when Virginia’s child support obligations were lower than they are today, in that case. That's because expenses like "childcare" were added to the "basic child support" amount, to more than double it. So the amounts you see in SB 805 will be less than half of what many low-income parents have to pay. How can a parent making $1,300 per month possibly pay $673 per month in child support, or anything close to it? But under SB 805, a parent would have to pay substantially more than $673 per month out of $1300, for a parent like the father in Herring v. Herring. How can someone making a poverty-level wage afford to pay over half their income in child support? They can't. And that violates 45 CFR § 302.56(c)(1) .

We approve of sb957

The Family Law Coalition supports the substitute SB957 as passed by the Senate and further agrees to conforming Del. Sewell’s similar bill hb1882 to Sen. Perry’s sb957.

PASS THIS BILL. But we have reservations: We absolutely need to start defining specific guidelines for the general public as well as LE and others so that the guidelines are crystal clear as to what one can and can not do under law in the digital spaces. However, this law does not go far enough. It must contain specific language NOT GRANTING a color of law exception for police to provide deep fakes or any impersonation online, specifically in online dating/hookup/gaming platforms where they run unethical sex stings.

We are opposed to this bill. While well-meaning, this bill presupposes that there is a boogey-man hiding in a bush trying to harm your child when in fact we know that most offenses are not conducted by those who are already on a registry list, but by new people who are NOT on a list. Further, we know many who have been convicted of sex stings where there is no victim, but who are charged as if their has been a victim. Second, this has been tried in Florida 25 years ago. By gradually widening the scope of where those convicted of an offense can go (anywhere a child is or can be) those so convicted ended up all huddled under one bridge! Third, We supposedly believe in second chances and in rehabilitation. This bill does not allow one convicted to go with his own children or grandchildren to a state park to enjoy. It sets a bad precedent as law enforcement would argue that one should have known there was a playground at this park, or that a particular area of the park in which children are playing is a "playground" prompting arrest. I myself have been arrested twice while on probation merely on the word of people "concerned' that I was doing something untoward, and, even though the court eventually dismissed the cases, it created needless hassle and cost me a lot of money I didn't have because I could not work due to the stigma of the offense, the the public's repeated calls to my employer urging my firing. This is the plight of many of us! It must be stopped. Do nothing to expand the registry, it's collateral damage, or effects. There is no evidence that the registry itself, or any other related strictures has resulted in even one child being saved.

It is 2025 and the internet is a major factor in our lives. It is far past the time to close the loophole and ensure that threats made online or in group texts are taken seriously under the law. Pass SB1271

Threats need to be taken seriously, especially death threats. No one should be able to hide behind a keyoboard. People need to be held accountable for their words & there has to be consequences for them. Mental & physical health are important & someone shouldn't be able to threaten either of them.

Please close this loophole in our policies to protect everyone from Online threats

Please approve this bill to protect people from cyberbullying, threats. etc.

Please find attached my Victim Impact Statement, written as a mother of a child profoundly affected by a dangerous loophole in our current legislation. Under the outdated 1998 statute, law enforcement is unable to arrest or prosecute perpetrators unless a direct threat is sent specifically to the victim's device. This fails to account for modern technology, including social media and group text messages, which are not legally considered “direct communication” under the current law. This gap in the law had devastating consequences for my daughter. Threats to dismember her and send me her remains in vials were shared in a group text—messages I only discovered because a concerned parent of another child included in the conversation alerted me. Despite the severity of these threats, law enforcement was powerless to act. As a police captain explained to us, he regularly has to tell parents and teenagers that his hands are tied simply because no one has taken the initiative to update this law. The time to act is now. We must protect the physical and mental well-being of Virginians by closing this loophole. I have included screenshots of the messages in my Victim Impact Statement for your review. I urge you to take this critical step in ensuring that our laws reflect the realities of modern communication and provide law enforcement with the necessary tools to intervene before threats escalate into tragedy. Thank you for your time and consideration.

The feedback strongly advocates for the passage of this legislation, highlighting a personal experience in which I was harassed online and unable to receive help from law enforcement. The police could not intervene because the threats were made publicly on social media rather than directly to the my personal device. This experience underscores the inadequacies of current laws to address modern online harassment. The feedback emphasizes that cyberbullying is a serious issue that affects individuals across all demographics. The proposed legislation would expand the scope of cyberbullying laws to include harassment in public digital spaces, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable regardless of the platform. It calls for a balance between protecting free speech and preventing harmful online abuse, asserting that the law should shield victims from harassment without limiting legitimate discourse. I urge you to act swiftly in passing the bill, stressing that cyberbullying has a real emotional impact on its victims and that the digital world must be a safer space. Ultimately, the feedback advocates for justice and protection, ensuring that those who face online abuse can seek help and that online cruelty will no longer be tolerated.

See attached letter

Use of the word competent made me confident.

This bill will cost taxpayers. VASAP was conceived as an offender funded program but is quickly becoming funded by local jurisdictions. The Commission on VASAP is using a preventive device (ignition interlock) as evidence of wrongdoing. Their policy is to extend interlock time for alcohol related violations. This extension is unaffordable and unsustainable. You’re going to find out I’m right when you pass this bill.