HB 1721 Relocation of Easement (Uniform Easement Relocation Act) Thank you for taking my comments, I am Janet Rorrer from Patrick County. We have an issue with a road easement over my son and his wife’s property here in Patrick County. The current road by their home is within 12 feet to the side of the house and 10 feet to a barn. A new road was built due to safety and the other parties change in the use of the road. This has been an on going problem for several years. Many landowners in Virginia have similar problems with roads over their property. These type roads over farm lands have changed over the years. People did not travel much in the horse and buggy days when these roads were created and most were related to one another. Roads can be relocated and should be when they cause a danger to humans or animals. Virginia Code 55.1-304 has a 10 year period involved, the new bill would change that. However the last sentence number 2 would not help people like my son. I humbly ask you to remove the clause stating “easement created on or after July 1, 2025”, and include any parties that have problems with relocating an easement. This bill would help many Virginia Farm Land Owners. Thank you for your time. Janet H. Rorrer 539 Dominion Valley Lane Stuart, Virginia 24171 (276) 694-4300

Since I first signed up to speak on hb1985- it is my understanding the bill will be stricken at the request of Del. Lovejoy. So you can remove me from the zoom comments on this bill since any comments will be unnecessary. Thank you.

Vote NO on HB 1985 On behalf of Family Reunion, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to the support of children and families, I am writing to express my opposition to HB1985, which is scheduled for a vote tomorrow. HB1985 proposes expanding child support obligations to include payments starting from the time of conception. While I support ensuring children and families have the resources they need, I believe this bill raises significant concerns that must be addressed. 1. The bill essentially creates a "life begins at conception" standard. While this is not an issue on which Family Reunion has a position, we note that the bill fails to consider the many ways in which it will impact other provisions of existing law. 2. Existing law already addresses prenatal expenses. Under Virginia Code § 20-108.2(D1), the law already mandates payment of the "unpaid expenses of the mother's pregnancy and the delivery of such child." This provision ensures that mothers are supported with necessary medical and pregnancy-related expenses, making further expansion of "child support" redundant. 3. It makes no sense to impose "child support" prior to birth. Only after birth does the child have an independent need for support separate from the mother. Among other unintended consequences, this bill will lead to claims for a refund if there is an abortion or miscarriage. 4. A mother who later loses custody will end up owing "child support" for her own pregnancy. 5. A mother who earns more than the father will end up paying child support to the father during the pregnancy. 6. Prior to birth, paternity is often not confirmed meaning that most "child support" under this bill would be retroactive and would cumulate to a large sum that will be essentially impossible to collect in most circumstances and will saddle the child support agency with yet more uncollectible arrearages that hurt the state's federal performance metrics and jeopardize federal incentive payments. I respectfully urge the committee to consider these potential issues as they review HB1985. While the intent to support families is commendable, I believe that existing laws already address many of these concerns, and this expansion may introduce more challenges than solutions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Karen Renee Merwin Director of Policy Family Reunion USA www.familyreunionUSA.org Family Reunion is a national, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that works with lawmakers, existing organizations, and experts dedicated to making much-needed changes to the family court system so the best interests of children can be supported. We focus on positively influencing family laws and policies that often discount one parent and ultimately harm the children. We believe the best parent is both parents.

HB1985 is a crazy, impractical bill. It could result in a mother having to pay child support to the father all the way back to the "date of conception," when SHE was carrying the kid, if HE gets custody of the kid! HB1985 could result in huge, uncollectable child support arrearages, because it changes the start date for child support from the date the child support proceeding "was filed" -- like after a couple splits up -- to the "date of conception," when they might still have been together (and even if they weren't, only the mom is carrying the kid during pregnancy). If a husband and wife split up after ten years of marriage, why should one parent have to pay retroactive child support to the other for those ten years when both were taking care of the kid and neither was the sole custodial parent? What middle-class person could possibly pay such an arrearage? Existing law already provides child support for the mother's pregnancy expenses, under Virginia Code § 20-108.2(D1), which mandates payment of the "unpaid expenses of the mother's pregnancy and the delivery of such child." That's for the mother's expenses, not the father's, generally speaking. Single moms pay those expenses -- a single dad doesn't, unless he chooses to do so, or is ordered to do so under § 20-108.2(D1). But HB 1985 would make the noncustodial parent -- even if the noncustodial parent is a mother -- pay monthly child support retroactive to the date of conception, when she was pregnant, and may well have been the only person paying for her own pregnancy expenses. That's unfair, and ridiculous.

HB1985 is a crazy, impractical bill. It could result in a mother having to pay child support to the father all the way back to the "date of conception," when SHE was carrying the kid, if HE gets custody of the kid! HB1985 could result in huge, uncollectible child support arrearages, because it changes the start date for child support from the date the child support proceeding "was filed" -- like after a couple splits up -- to the "date of conception," when they might still have been together (and even if they weren't, only the mom is carrying the kid during pregnancy). If a husband and wife split up after ten years of marriage, why should one parent have to pay retroactive child support to the other for those ten years when both were taking care of the kid and neither was the sole custodial parent? What middle-class person could possibly pay such an arrearage? Existing law already provides child support for the mother's pregnancy expenses, under § 20-108.2(D1), mandating payment of the :unpaid expenses of the mother's pregnancy and the delivery of such child." That's for the mother's expenses, not the father's, generally speaking. Single moms pay those expenses -- the dad doesn't, unless he chooses to do so or is ordered to do so. But HB 1985 would make the noncustodial parent -- even if the noncustodial parent is a mother -- pay monthly child support retroactive to the date of conception, when she was pregnant, and may well have been the only person paying for her own pregnancy expenses. That's unfair, and ridiculous.