Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Rick Dwyer and I am the Executive Director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, an organization that supports the vast military and federal presence in our region. I am also a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and served over 20 years on active duty. Our organization and the communities of Hampton Roads collectively support 18 military installations, all six branches of the military services, 120,000 active duty, reserve and civilian personnel, over 125,000 military dependents, and nearly 220,000 veterans. In 2023, the Department of Defense spent over $68.5 billion in Virginia and directly employed over 247,000 people. Needless to say, supporting the military and our national defense is part of who we are in Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth. I am here today to express our support for House Bill 1882. The military takes incidents of violence, abuse, sexual assault, and harassment seriously and is committed to a timely response regarding reports of violence. With military service members, often both civilian and military authorities are involved in addressing domestic violence cases. The impact of interpersonal violence extends beyond the individual victim, as it can also undermine the mission readiness of military units and compromise national security. A military family’s personal well-being is a critical factor when it comes to their ability to effectively serve the country. This bill ensures civilian authorities treat the issuance of a military protective order (MPO) by a commanding officer as good cause to issue a preliminary protective order. It also ensures coordination between civilian law enforcement and military law enforcement when a civilian law enforcement officer has reason to believe a military member has violated a MPO. This ensures military commanders are made aware if one of their service members has violated an MPO and can take appropriate actions to maintain good order and discipline in their units. This bill sends a clear signal that Virginia values its strong relationship with the military and is willing to continuously support efforts to make the Commonwealth the most military-friendly state in the country. We humbly request your support of HB1882. Thank you.

I am against this bill which allows for the issuance of summonses to juveniles in custody, visitation, and support proceedings. Here's why: Lack of Child Protection: This bill might not adequately protect the interests of juveniles by involving them directly in legal proceedings where they might not have the maturity or understanding to participate effectively, potentially conflicting with the child welfare principles established in Santosky v. Kramer (1982). Potential for Coercion: Allowing courts or parties to summon juveniles could lead to situations where children are coerced into taking sides or being involved in adult disputes, which could be psychologically harmful, echoing concerns about child welfare in In re Gault (1967). Judicial Overreach: By giving courts the power to issue summonses on their own motion, this legislation might extend judicial overreach into family matters, potentially undermining parental authority and the best interest of the child standard, similar to issues raised in Troxel v. Granville (2000). Increased Legal Burden: Involving juveniles in these proceedings could increase the legal and emotional burden on them, which might not be in their best interest, especially without clear guidelines on how their involvement should be managed, reflecting concerns about the impact of legal proceedings on minors as in Parham v. J.R. (1979). Privacy Concerns: Summoning juveniles into court proceedings could infringe on their privacy, exposing them to public scrutiny at a young age, which is contrary to privacy protections discussed in cases like Ginsberg v. New York (1968) regarding minors. Complexity in Proceedings: The inclusion of juveniles could complicate custody, visitation, and support proceedings, potentially leading to delays or confusion in what should be straightforward family law matters, similar to the procedural concerns in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981). Legal Representation: There's a risk that juveniles might not have adequate legal representation or understanding of their rights, which could lead to unfair outcomes, paralleling the need for representation highlighted in In re Gault. I oppose this legislation due to concerns over the protection of juvenile interests, the risk of coercion, judicial overreach, the increased legal burden on children, privacy issues, potential complexity in legal proceedings, and the lack of guaranteed legal representation, advocating for a system that prioritizes the well-being and minimal involvement of juveniles in such legal disputes.

I am in favor of this bill which expands the ability to challenge an attorney-issued subpoena duces tecum in Virginia. Here's why: Broader Protection: By allowing any person affected by or subject to a subpoena duces tecum to file a motion to quash or modify it, this bill broadens the protective scope of legal proceedings, ensuring that individuals indirectly impacted also have a voice, aligning with principles of due process as upheld in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). Increased Fairness: This change promotes fairness in legal proceedings by giving standing to more parties, reducing the potential for abuse of subpoena power, which echoes the fairness considerations in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) regarding procedural protections. Efficiency in Legal Process: Allowing affected parties to directly address subpoenas can streamline legal processes by reducing the need for third-party interventions or appeals, potentially speeding up case resolutions, similar to the efficiency arguments in Felker v. Turpin (1996). Privacy and Burden Reduction: This legislation helps protect the privacy of individuals and reduces unnecessary burdens by ensuring that only relevant documents or information are subpoenaed, reflecting privacy concerns akin to those in Carpenter v. United States (2018). Judicial Oversight: Directing the Supreme Court of Virginia to amend its rules ensures that this legislative change is integrated seamlessly into the judicial framework, promoting consistency and clarity in legal practice, much like the judicial rule-making authority discussed in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. (1941). Prevents Overreach: By providing a mechanism for anyone affected to challenge a subpoena, it helps prevent overreach by attorneys, ensuring subpoenas are not used as tools of harassment or undue pressure, addressing concerns similar to those in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) about abusive legal tactics. Enhances Access to Justice: This bill enhances access to justice by making the legal process more inclusive, allowing more stakeholders to participate actively in defending their rights, which supports the broader access to justice principles from Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). I support this legislation for its enhancement of procedural fairness, efficiency, privacy protection, judicial oversight, prevention of legal overreach, and for improving access to justice, ensuring that the legal system in Virginia operates with greater equity and responsiveness to all parties involved.