VALA opposes HB1730 as it creates a strict liability bill that penalizes an assisted living facility that has done its due diligence in abiding by the requirements of the law, including background checks on every employee. If the business failed to abide by the law or was negligent in its actions, then we could understand the allocation of liability; however, an employer that had no warning of a future criminal act of an employee that passed the background required by law should not be punished for the act of the employee that was unpredictable. This bill will create significant liability on an already strained industry. HB1730 unfairly targets industries that must rely on direct interactions with individuals in order to provide services. By increasing the liability of such industries, then the associated cost of insurance will increase, which will then increase the cost of care by the consumers. We ask you to oppose HB1730.

Support for HOUSE BILL NO. 2187 Strengthening Child Welfare Oversight in Virginia HOUSE BILL NO. 2187, introduced by Delegate Freitas, seeks to enhance the role of Virginia's Children's Ombudsman in safeguarding the welfare of children involved in child welfare services. Here’s why this bill is a commendable step forward: Constitutional and State Law Support: Constitutional Basis for Child Protection: The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law, which can be extended to argue for the state’s obligation to protect children's rights and welfare. This amendment supports the state's intervention in cases where children's rights might be at risk due to abuse, neglect, or inadequate care. Virginia State Law: Virginia Code § 2.2-442 already establishes the Children's Ombudsman, but this bill expands its scope, aligning with the state's commitment to child welfare as outlined in various statutes, including the Virginia Children's Services Act, which emphasizes providing services to at-risk children in a family-focused, community-based environment. Parental Rights and Child Welfare: While the bill enhances the Ombudsman's powers, it does not negate parental rights but rather aims to ensure these rights are exercised in a manner that truly benefits the child. The Virginia Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois (1972) emphasized that while parental rights are fundamental, they are not absolute when the welfare of the child is at stake. Child and Parental Rights Cases: Santosky v. Kramer (1982) - The U.S. Supreme Court held that in proceedings to terminate parental rights, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. This bill's focus on thorough investigation and advocacy aligns with ensuring that decisions affecting parental rights are well-founded and fair. In re J.W. (2009) - A Virginia case where the court emphasized the importance of considering the best interest of the child when making decisions about custody and parental rights. The bill's advocacy for child welfare aligns with this judicial direction. In summary, HOUSE BILL NO. 2187 represents a significant step forward in ensuring that Virginia's child welfare system operates with the highest level of accountability, transparency, and advocacy for those it serves. It aligns with both constitutional principles and state law, offering a robust framework for protecting and advocating for children's rights while respecting the legal framework governing parental rights.

As a domestic violence survivor whose children have been abused their entire lives, we need more oversight and accountability for DSS. This bill helps to establish that, especially in situations where CPS ignores repeated reports by mandatory reporters. I have lost all rights to my children because CPS does not investigate constant reports, therefore the court deemed me malicious, despite outside reporters reporting sometimes on a weekly basis. Without this bill, CPS will continue to run amok, which increases mental health issues, delinquency, drop out rates, poverty levels and burdens on the system. The long term affects of these policies on women and children are extreme.

I oppose The amendment's expansive definition of "neglect" poses a significant threat to parental rights and could lead to unjust terminations of those rights. Here's why: Broad and Vague Definition: The amendment broadens what constitutes neglect to such an extent that it could include non-life-threatening situations or minor lapses in judgment. This vagueness allows for subjective interpretations, which could lead to the termination of parental rights based on criteria that are not universally understood or agreed upon as constituting true neglect. This could mean parents might lose their children over issues that, with proper support, could be resolved without permanent separation. Risk of Overreach in Termination Proceedings: With a broad definition, there's a heightened risk that CPS or courts might overstep in their interpretation of neglect, leading to more cases where parental rights are terminated when less drastic measures could suffice. This overreach is particularly alarming when considering that termination is one of the most severe outcomes in child welfare, potentially leading to lifelong impacts on both children and parents. Impact on Families with Mental Health or Substance Use Issues: For parents dealing with mental health or substance use disorders, this broad definition could mean their conditions are misconstrued as neglect rather than seen as treatable issues. Instead of receiving support to address these challenges, parents might face immediate and permanent loss of rights, which goes against principles of rehabilitation and family preservation. Potential for Systemic Bias and Discrimination: A broad definition of neglect can disproportionately affect marginalized communities, where systemic biases already exist in child welfare systems. Families from certain socio-economic backgrounds, ethnic minorities, or those with disabilities might find themselves more easily labeled as neglectful under this expanded definition, leading to a higher rate of rights termination without considering the context or support needs of these families. Undermines Child and Family Well-being: Permanently severing parental rights based on a broad interpretation of neglect can be detrimental to a child's emotional and psychological well-being. The trauma of separation can outweigh the perceived benefits of removal, especially if the neglect could have been mitigated through less invasive interventions like counseling, education, or temporary assistance. Lack of Clarity for Legal Protections: This broader definition might not only confuse parents about what behaviors are prohibited but also make it harder for them to defend their rights in court. When the legal threshold for what constitutes neglect becomes too wide, it dilutes the protections parents should have, potentially leading to unfair legal outcomes. Encourages Punitive Rather Than Supportive Measures: By making it easier to label a situation as neglect, the focus shifts from providing support to families in need towards punishing them for not meeting an overly broad standard. This approach neglects (pun intended) the opportunity to help families overcome challenges, instead opting for the finality of rights termination.

Dear Delegates, I am writing you to ask you to please consider supporting HB2505. My wife and I have adopted 4 children and 3 of them from the foster care system. We have assisted many others in adoption as well. In almost every case we have witnessed the delays, hold-ups, and extended court procedures. I have come to understand that there are two different types of foster parents; One set is more focused on fostering until the child reaches adulthood, while others like my wife and I fostered with the hopes of adoption (only if the rights of the bio parents are terminated of course). In all three of our cases the process took over 2 years for our 12 day old baby girl, and over 3 years for our two boys who were 18 months and 4 years. (CPS knows which children are more likely to go towards adoption as in our case, and most of the other cases we have been associated with the bio parents already having had other children removed prior to our children entering into CPS). The longer the process takes the harder it is to provide a stable, loving, and secure environment as the children are continually tossed back and forth, and with the process taking so long, the children are the ones who struggle mentally, emotionally, and even spiritually. They are conflicted with their loyalties, titles for extended families, with no clear future they are scared to make plans or get their hopes up, and many times experience over and over broken promises (such as visits, phone calls, presents or cards for birthdays etc.). If children are being removed it is because it is a last resort and if the bio parents are not able or willing to do what is required (provide a safe home, food, etc.). We need to make the difficult transition as smooth and painless as possible. I believe that all of us want what is truly best for the "children", so with that in mind, please, please, support this bill and help the children in Foster Care (CPS) begin the healing process sooner! Sincerely, Pastor Kevin Harris

I am writing on behalf of the foster bill and the length of time that children are in foster care in Virginia. As a foster/adoptive parent, I find it ludacris of the time frame that it takes to adopt a child in Virginia. Children need stability, safety, and routine. Children also need many, many other things are well, however, these three are more time sensitive. To keep a child in limbo for YEAR(S) to give parents chances time and time again, to appeal court decisions up to THREE times is unacceptable. If a birth parent is truly wanting to reunite, they will start trying right from the get go. There are plenty of government resources to help birth parents get back on their feet. But to drag the time line out for months and months, years even, is not psychological healthy for the child. We fostered our son at 7 days old and his adoption was not final until 2 years later, almost to the day. From the beginning it was known that birth mom would not ever be obtaining custody due to jail length time. His birth father saw him once while my son was detoxing in the hospital from meth overdose and was so high, he could not keep his eyes open (this was documented in my son's court records via staff). Then after TEN months of zero contact, the birth father pops into DSS expecting visitations, and of course it was granted. Visitations was once a week until a court date was obtained, which of course was drug out. When court was had, the judge ruled for birth father to obtain a drug test, and we never heard from again. From the beginning, all family had already been ruled out (except for a distant, distant relative that they would have taken my son away, after 8 months of being raised by us-but that's a different topic). Once all this had taken place, it was still another year plus before we were able to move towards adoption. As foster parents, we were aware that at any time DSS could come uproot my son and our family to "reunite." Once foster children have been moved to adoption through the court system, there should be NO reason why that process can not move more quickly. There is no reason for appeals, visitations, etc. At that point, the foster families need to start moving towards stability, safety, and routine, which is what's best for the child.

In my personal experience, children who have suffered from trauma and lack parental support endure even greater hardships when forced to wait for permanency. I have firsthand experience with this issue where the Virginia Department of Social Services (DSS) delayed adoption proceedings due to personal relationships between DSS workers and the biological parents. Despite the parents voluntarily signing over their parental rights, adoption was unnecessarily delayed for over a year that caused confusion and further emotional trauma for the child involved trauma that was both preventable and inexcusable. I fully support House Bill 2505, which aims to streamline the appeals process and prioritize cases that involve the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of children, as well as the termination of parental rights. This bill’s provision to make the juvenile court a court of record and ensure that these cases take precedence in the Court of Appeals is a necessary step in protecting vulnerable children. It is vital that we take action to avoid further delays that only perpetuate suffering for children in need of permanency. Thank you for your time and attention to this Bill, Charity B. Trissel FNP-BC Active foster and adoptive parent.

My husband and I recently adopted a son through the foster care system in Harrisonburg/Rockingham Co. He entered foster care in July 2022 at 8 months old after his teenage mother was sentenced to a short stay in juvenile detention. In Sept 2022 he was united with his biological mother in a "Mother Baby" group home for troubled teens in Petersburg, VA. This was determined to not be a realistic placement due to the mother’s inability to provide safe and consistent care for him, partly due to the mother's mental health conditions combined with known intellectual delays, and her son entered our home in January 2023. The goal was changed to adoption in April 2023, with termination of parental rights decided in JDR Court in Aug 2023 and biological mom immediately appealed. The appeal was heard in January 2024 (not within the 90-day timeframe typically required) with the same decision to proceed with TPR and she again desired to appeal. She filed appeal paperwork on her own, never paid the filing fee or had a brief submitted to the Court of Appeals and this caused a prolonged waiting period. I called monthly to the Court of Appeals with no status changes and was eventually told they can see the appeal was filed but it was missing the required components, and it had not yet been reviewed by a judge to be formally dismissed. Eight months later, the court of appeals dismissed the second (and incomplete) appeal in August of 2024. We finalized our adoption on October 16, 2024. I am asking that you reconsider the appeals process in Virginia as it pertains to children in the foster care system with the goal of decreasing the total time from TPR to adoption. The prolonged period of waiting for the appeal to move up to the next court caused us to continue confusing and potentially damaging visitations with our son and his biological mother. It also caused an unnecessary burden on witnesses and social workers, etc. all required to be present for multiple court hearings without a change in outcome. In our scenario, it was obvious in the first five minutes in Circuit court in Jan 2024 that she was not appropriate to be awarded parental rights, and I imagine our case in not unique. Please also consider how offering for a parent to “file an appeal” but not following through with all requirements (fee payment & lack of legal representation) should be an automatic dismissal of the appeal. On paper, it was clear in April 2023 that our son should not return to the care of his biological mother who was very much so not appropriate to parent him but it took another 18 months for it to be finalized. I am asking for reform so that other children and foster families do not have to experience similar complications that we did. Thank you!

As a foster mom and CEO of Blue Ridge Foster Love (a nonprofit that serves our local foster and kinship care families), I have seen first hand the impact that keeping children in foster care for extended periods of time does to their well-being and the further trauma it causes for them. There are children who cannot sleep through the night because they are worried someone will take them from the only home they know. There are children who regress into bed wetting at 8 years old because they too are worried about their future and if they will be able to stay there. This bill will allow children in care to have permanency quicker. I ask that for the best interest of these children that have been through so much already that you please consider this bill.

We are writing today concerning the rapid downfall of the rights of the children and foster parents of our local Department of Social Services. With over 14 years of service as foster parents we closed our home 3 years ago because of the things our foster children and family were forced to go through. We had our last placement over 9 months and was given a 5-day warning that she would be sent to live with a family member in another state. No transition period for her, No visitation with the family or nothing. She was taken to a hotel that day and put on a plane the next day with people that knew nothing about her or her wants, needs, likes, dislikes, schedule, Nothing. During those 5 days before The head supervisor of the department would not even except or return our calls. Previous cases we witnessed were failed repeated drug testing with chance after chance given, repeated no show visitations with chance after chance given, extended court dates, appeals on behalf of parents that did not even show for court, family members that do not have to even meet the criteria foster parents do, and so much more. The kids have become a case number and a file that is just closed at the end of the day. The foster care system is broken and no longer what best for the child. I pray for a much-needed reform and quick for the children forced into foster care at no choice of their own.

My name is Jonathan Brush. I am writing in support of HB2505. My wife, Kara, and I completed the training to be foster parents in 2021. We wanted to help children, but we were also motivated to help the parents of those children. We ended up adopting the first child that was placed with us. This was an enormous joy and blessing for our family, but the journey to get to adoption was difficult and frustrating. One of the biggest frustrations was the enormous amount of time that it took between the initial termination of parental rights and the ultimate upholding of that ruling after all of the subsequent appeals. That process took over two years. You may think that we would argue that process should be faster and resolved much more quickly, because of the enormous amount of stress and pain it caused our family, as we had to continually live with the reality of caring for a child that we hoped to adopt, but that could be removed from our home pending a court decision. That would be true, but I do not believe that is the strongest argument for this bill. We were able to form good relationships with both of our adopted daughter's birth parents, despite the circumstances we were in, and the fact that a lot of interaction occurred in court room waiting areas. In our daughter's case I believe the evidence was clear that if she had remained with her birth parents her life would have been clearly endangered for a variety of reasons. The court terminated parental rights, and upheld that ruling through the subsequent appeals over a more than two year period. We fully support the right for, in this case, the birth mother to appeal the initial ruling. What was enormously frustrating to us was the time it took for those appeals to be processed and decided by the court. It was agony for us to have to live in a state of legal limbo during that time, but I couldn't help think about what that was like for the birth mother. Imagine a scenario where the child was removed and parental rights were terminated unjustly. The parents appeal and the court agrees and reverses the earlier decision and restores custody. That process could take up to and over two years! There is an enormous different between a new born infant and a two year old. Essential bonding time with the child would have been lost, and the removal of the child from the foster home and return to the birth parents would be enormously traumatic for all parties, the foster family, the child, and the birth parents. Children, their parents, and foster families deserve to have their cases heard as closely to immediately as possible, the appeals process should be as short as possible, and scheduled as early as possible. If the termination is upheld the sooner that legal limbo status can be removed and the adoption process complete the sooner the adopting family can concentrate solely on caring for and raising the child. If an appeal is help and the ruling reversed the parent or parents who had their parental rights terminated need to have them restored as quickly as possible to minimize the damage to their relationship with their child. That time period should be measured in weeks and possibly months, never in years. Thank you for your time, and I urge that you vote in support of HB2505

Children subject to CHINS petitions are often children with disabilities with significant needs. The appointment of a GAL for these children is an important safeguard that ensures that an attorney with knowledge of the judicial process and the available systems of support, and whose sole responsibility is to identify and advocate for the best interests of the child are part of the process.

Normally I despise bills that fuel guardians and conservators especially in light of the damage it did to folks like Britney Spears. But because it specifically says competent when referring to guardians I will make quite the exception! Well done Del Rasoul!

Support for the Amendment: Prevents Misdiagnosis Due to Lack of Training: Family service workers who are not adequately trained to interpret drug and alcohol screens can lead to wrongful assessments of child abuse or neglect. This amendment ensures that children are not labeled as abused or neglected based solely on the presence of substances that are legally prescribed by a physician or other medical personnel authorized to diagnose health issues and prescribe legal medications. Reduces Bias and Misinterpretation: There's a risk that untrained personnel might misinterpret the presence of legally prescribed substances as signs of abuse or neglect. This amendment clarifies that the legal use of medications prescribed by authorized medical professionals should not automatically lead to such a determination, safeguarding against bias or misinterpretation. Protects Parental Rights: The amendment upholds the constitutional right to privacy and the fundamental right to parent, as established in cases like Stanley v. Illinois (1972). It ensures that custody or visitation rights aren't denied solely based on the use of medications legally prescribed by healthcare providers, emphasizing that treatment for health conditions should not equate to loss of parental rights. Addresses Potential Conflicts of Interest: By highlighting the issue with outside contractors potentially benefiting from finding positive tests, this amendment could lead to more impartial evaluations. It encourages a system where the focus is genuinely on the well-being of the child rather than on maintaining contracts or funding, especially when substances are legally prescribed. Promotes Fairness in Child Welfare Investigations: The directive for the Board of Social Services to amend its materials ensures that policy and practice align with the law, promoting consistency and fairness across all local departments. This can lead to more standardized and just approaches in child welfare cases, particularly when dealing with legally prescribed medications. Encourages Proper Substance Use Treatment: By not penalizing the use of legally prescribed substances, the amendment supports a health-focused approach rather than a punitive one. This can encourage parents to seek and adhere to medical treatment without fear of losing custody, ultimately benefiting the child's environment and the family's health. Legal and Policy Clarity: This amendment clarifies the law, reducing ambiguity in how child abuse or neglect is defined in relation to substance use. It aligns with public health approaches that distinguish between the responsible use of legal medications and actual neglect or abuse, ensuring decisions are made based on the actual impact on parenting and child safety. In summary, this amendment is a commendable effort to ensure that child welfare decisions are based on factual assessments of harm rather than on the mere presence of legally prescribed medications. It supports a more nuanced approach to child protection, respecting parental rights while aiming to protect children from genuine neglect or abuse, with the stipulation that proper medical oversight and use are maintained.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of HB2613, which seeks to ensure that parents and guardians are not unjustly penalized or at risk of losing custody or parental rights solely for the lawful use of cannabis. As cannabis legalization expands across the country, it is vital to update policies to reflect this shift and prevent unintended consequences for responsible individuals. The use of legal cannabis—whether for medical or recreational purposes—should not be grounds for questioning a parent’s ability to care for their children, particularly when cannabis use has been shown to have less societal harm than substances like alcohol, which is legally accepted. This bill protects families by ensuring that the focus of any parental rights or custody proceedings remains on the best interests of the child, as it should. Parents should be evaluated based on their actual caregiving abilities, the safety and well-being of their children, and the broader context of their household, rather than outdated stigmas about cannabis use. Furthermore, legal cannabis is often used for legitimate medical purposes, including chronic pain management, mental health conditions, and other serious health issues. Penalizing parents for accessing a legal and therapeutic substance discriminates against those who rely on cannabis as part of their healthcare. This is particularly unjust when there is no evidence of harm or neglect caused by its use. Passing this bill would align family law with the principles of equity and fairness while safeguarding children from being unnecessarily separated from loving and capable parents. It also sends a clear message that the state supports science-based, compassionate, and just policies. I urge you to vote in favor of HB2613 and protect the rights of parents who responsibly and legally use cannabis. Thank you for considering this important measure to strengthen and protect families. Sincerely,
 Jessee Perry

I a m both for and against this . Reasoning For this are: Parental Rights and Involvement: Constitutional Basis: The Fourteenth Amendment implies a right to parental involvement in a child's education and health, supporting transparency in these areas. Cases like Troxel v. Granville (2000) affirm the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, which could extend to accessing records. Enhanced Parental Engagement: This could lead to better health outcomes and academic performance by allowing parents to be more informed and proactive. Ease of Access: For parents with busy schedules, having health records available online can be more convenient, facilitating quicker responses to health or academic concerns. Technological Advancement: The bill aligns with the trend of digitizing records for efficiency and accessibility, which is already a practice in many educational and healthcare systems. Reasons I am Against this are: Privacy Concerns: Health Information Privacy: Under HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), health records are protected with stringent privacy requirements. Sharing these records through a website, even if secure, could increase the risk of breaches; Security Risks: The recent PowerSchool security breach illustrates the vulnerability of online systems. Health records contain sensitive information that, if compromised, could lead to identity theft, discrimination, or other harms. Potential for Misuse: There's a risk that access to health records might be used inappropriately, especially in contentious family situations like divorce or custody battles, where information could be leveraged against a parent or child. Child's Privacy Rights: Children, especially as they grow older, have an increasing right to privacy concerning their health. Laws like FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) protect student educational records, but similar considerations for health privacy under HIPAA should apply. The Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) supports the notion of privacy rights, which could extend to minors' health information. Implementation Challenges: Ensuring that only authorized individuals have access to health records would require robust identity verification systems, which might not be foolproof. Additionally, managing consent for access, especially in cases where minors can consent to treatment independently (as per certain state laws), adds complexity. Coding of Personal Information: Even with academic records, there should be stringent measures to code or anonymize personal information to prevent identity exposure, especially after breaches. This bill should explicitly require such measures to protect student identities. Legal and Ethical Concerns: There might be legal challenges related to the intersection of state privacy laws, federal privacy regulations like HIPAA, and the child's growing autonomy over personal health information, especially as they approach adulthood. In conclusion, while the bill aims to enhance parental oversight and involvement, the potential privacy and security risks, especially concerning health records, merit significant caution. Any move towards broader access should be accompanied by robust security measures, clear guidelines on what can be accessed, and stringent controls to protect children's privacy rights and identity.

Excuse me!!! That’s already the law of the land. I know from recent experience!

In Favor of the Bill: This bill represents a significant step forward in ensuring fairness and stability for children in custody arrangements: Protects the Rights of Caregivers: By mandating notification and the right to be heard for those with a legitimate interest in the child's life, the bill safeguards the interests and rights of caregivers who have been legally recognized in the child's life. This ensures they are not bypassed in decisions that directly affect them and the child. Promotes Continuity and Stability for Children: Stability is crucial for a child's development. This bill helps maintain continuity in a child's living situation by involving all parties with a legitimate interest in any custody modification discussions, potentially reducing the disruption in a child's life. Enhances Judicial Transparency: The bill fosters a more transparent judicial process where decisions regarding a child's custody are not made in a vacuum but involve all relevant parties. This transparency can lead to better-informed judicial decisions that consider the child's best interests more comprehensively. Upholds Due Process: By giving individuals with a legitimate interest the right to be notified and heard, the bill aligns with due process principles, ensuring that no one's legal standing or relationship with the child is altered without their knowledge or input, which is fundamental to justice. Supports Family Integrity: Often, those with a legitimate interest are family members or close family friends who play a vital role in the child's life. This bill supports family integrity by ensuring these relationships are respected in legal proceedings, potentially preventing abrupt separations that might harm the child. Reduces Potential for Unfair Outcomes: Without this bill, there could be scenarios where custody changes occur without the awareness or participation of important figures in a child's life, leading to potentially unfair or uninformed decisions. This legislation helps mitigate that risk. Encourages Collaborative Decision-Making: By involving all stakeholders, the bill encourages a collaborative approach to child welfare, where decisions are made with a broader perspective on what's best for the child, potentially leading to more amicable and stable arrangements. Reflects Modern Family Dynamics: In today's diverse family structures, recognizing the role and rights of those with a legitimate interest beyond just biological parents reflects a more inclusive and realistic approach to child custody, benefiting children in non-traditional family settings. In summary, this bill is a legislative acknowledgment of the importance of all significant caregivers in a child's life, promoting justice, stability, and the best interest of the child by ensuring those with legitimate interests are part of the conversation when custody is at stake.