VADA further opposes SB1108 to the extent it eliminates the option in Va. Code § 16.1-107 that allows an insured defendant, in lieu of posting an appeal bond, to provide a letter from the defendant’s insurer setting forth an irrevocable certification that the defendant has coverage sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment. This provision, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, has been law in this Commonwealth since 2011, the same year the General Assembly raised the jurisdictional limit in GDC from $15,000 to its present $25,000. Strict compliance with this provision is required. Members of the plaintiff’s bar confirm that there has been no history of abuse of this provision. The purpose of the appeal bond is to make sure there is a source of funds with which to satisfy the judgment. An insurer promising irrevocably and in writing to provide coverage to a defendant in an amount sufficient to satisfy the judgment accomplishes that end. There is no reason to eliminate it. Particularly given the increase in litigation in GDC once the jurisdictional limit increases, eliminating the “irrevocable confirmation” option serves no other purpose than to make it more difficult for defendants who have insurance to appeal, without enhancing the rights of plaintiffs to collect on their judgment should they prevail in circuit court. With circuit court being the only opportunity for defendants to take advantage of procedural safeguards such as written discovery, depositions, and their constitutional right to a trial by jury, and with no ability on the part of defendants to remove an action from GDC to circuit court, we should make it easier for litigants to appeal to circuit court, not harder. Such is particularly true for defendants who, under SB1108 in its current form, face the risk of an excess exposure in GDC, thus making access to circuit court and its attendant safeguards all the more critical. Regarding a defendant’s right to trial by jury, the Supreme Court of Virginia has made clear that requiring a litigant to appeal in order to exercise that right is permissible only so long as the appeal can be accomplished via “a reasonable, simple procedure.” Brooks v. Potomac, 149 Va. 427, 141 S.E. 249 (1928). The “irrevocable confirmation” option is such a procedure, and is one which has served Virginians and the court system well for the past ten years. Any attempt to eliminate that option should be rejected. As to any argument that the “irrevocable confirmation” option should be eliminated so that the Code treats all litigants equally, Code § 16.1-107 already waives the bond requirement as to a select group of litigants. For example, no bond is required of a plaintiff in a civil case, unless the defendant has asserted a counterclaim. Also, with limited exceptions, §16.1-107 waives the bond requirement in its entirety for persons who are indigent. SB1108 limits the increase in GDC jurisdiction to actions “for injury to person, regardless of theory, and any action for wrongful death … .” These actions are the very types of actions covered by automobile liability insurance. At bottom, elimination of the “irrevocable confirmation” option in § 16.1-107 appears to be nothing more than a solution in search of a problem. In so doing, it creates more problems than it solves. For these reasons, and those stated in our other comments, we would ask the Committee not to report SB1108.

VADA is not opposed in concept to an increase in the jurisdictional limit in GDC. Our concern with SB1108 rests on the fact that it raises the GDC jurisdictional limit to $50,000, while SB1182, as presently under consideration in the House Labor and Committee, raises Virginia’s minimum insurance limits to only $30/60/25. Of additional concern to our members is the timing of the increase in GDC jurisdiction relative to the effective date for the effective date of the liability coverage increase in SB1182. Since GDC’s inception in 1973, the jurisdictional limit for civil cases in GDC always has been equal to or less than Virginia’s minimum limits for automobile liability coverage. Litigants have been able to order their affairs in reliance upon the fact that civil claims in GDC are never going to exceed their available insurance limits, thereby protecting them from the risk of personal or excess exposure. Without any increase in GDC jurisdiction commensurate with an increase in Virginia’s minimum coverage limits, and further marrying an increase in GDC jurisdiction to the same timetable as an increase in Virginia’s minimum coverage, there will be a class of Virginians—primarily those of limited means—who, for the first time ever, face a risk of liability out of their own pocket that previously did not exist. Compounding the harm SB1108 creates, litigants in general district court lack access to important safeguards such as depositions, written discovery, and the ability to exercise their constitutional right to a trial by a jury of their peers to help protect and defend them against this risk. With a flood of new cases to GDC once the jurisdictional limit increases, this harm to defendants is magnified even further. Further, rather than increasing the GDC jurisdictional limit across the board, SB1108, in its current form (lines 52-53), restricts this increase to actions “for injury to person, regardless of theory, and any action for wrongful death … .” These cases are ones that typically arise as the result of motor vehicle accidents. They likewise are ones that typically are covered by insurance. For this reason, too, any increase in the GDC jurisdiction for these cases should be tied to a like increase in Virginia’s minimum coverage limits. Such increase in jurisdiction, too, should be wed to the same timeframe as the increase in coverage. Lastly, subjecting a defendant to a risk of excess exposure in GDC implicates an insurer’s ability under Virginia Code § 38.2-2206(K) to tender its insured’s available coverage and, contingent upon the insured’s cooperating with the plaintiff’s UIM carrier, protect the insured from the risk of a subrogation claim. In its present form, Virginia Code § 8.01-66.1 sets forth the parameters of an insured’s duty to cooperate with the UIM carrier. They include things like answering discovery and attending depositions, neither of which are part of an action in GDC. Without revision to § 8.01-66.1, there will be uncertainty among insurers, plaintiffs, and defendants as to what their respective rights and obligations are under these two statutes. For these reasons, and those stated in our other comments, we would ask the Committee not to report SB1108.

SB 1108 Comment submitted by James A. Cales III In light of and in addition to the previous comments, VADA is not opposed in concept to an increase in the jurisdictional limit in GDC. Our concern with this bill rests on the elimination of the option in Va. Code § 16.1-107 allowing an insured defendant, in lieu of posting an appeal bond, to provide a letter from the defendant’s insurer setting forth an irrevocable certification that the defendant has coverage sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment. A. Elimination of “irrevocable confirmation” provision in Va. Code § 16.1-107 1. Disparate treatment a. For insured defendants, it is generally their insurer, not the defendants personally, who is responsible for the judgment and for noting and perfecting the appeal. b. Unlike with a single litigant, getting an appeal bond generated and posted by an insurance carrier—and the layers of management, review, etc., that goes along with it—is much more arduous. c. Virginia Code §16.1-107 makes clear that “no appeal bond shall be required of a plaintiff in a civil case” unless the defendant has asserted a counterclaim. Hence, the statute already treats plaintiffs and defendants differently, rendering it easier for plaintiffs to note and perfect an appeal. Eliminating the “irrevocable confirmation” option for defendants enhances this disparity. d. With limited exceptions, §16.1-107 further waives the bond requirement in its entirety for persons who are indigent. 2. In addition, absent an appeal, opening the gates to more cases in GDC is going to deprive a defendant—who, unlike a plaintiff, doesn’t have a choice of forum—of his or her right to trial by jury. Addressing whether a party’s right to a jury trial is unconstitutionally infringed when he or she must appeal in order to exercise that right, the Supreme Court of Virginia, in Brooks v. Potomac, 149 Va. 427, 141 S.E. 249 (1928), held "[t]he fact that the party is not able to obtain [a trial by jury] in the inferior court is not a deprivation of the right of trial by jury, if provision is made whereby it can be secured upon an appeal by a reasonable, simple procedure" (emphasis added). Such a procedure, which has served Virginians and the court system well for the past ten years, is the “irrevocable confirmation” option of Va. Code § 16.1-107. a. Given that the General Assembly passed the “irrevocable confirmation” bill the same year it raised the GDC limit from $15k to $25k, it appears clear that the General Assembly, with increased access to general district court, thought it a good idea to simplify the process for appeal. b. Here, we are aware of no compelling reason why this option should be eliminated. What we would urge would be: restore and leave in place the “irrevocable confirmation” option in Va. Code § 16.1-107. Alternatively, we would ask the Committee to refer SB1108 for consideration relative to the propriety of instituting at least some form of limited discovery that would help assuage for defendants the impact of proceeding forward in GDC without these safeguards in place.

SB 1108 Comment submitted by James A Cales III In addition to and in light of the other comments, the VADA is not opposed in concept to an increase in the jurisdictional limit in GDC. Our concern with this bill rests on the elimination of the option in Va. Code § 16.1-107 allowing an insured defendant, in lieu of posting an appeal bond, to provide a letter from the defendant’s insurer setting forth an irrevocable certification that the defendant has coverage sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment. A. Elimination of “irrevocable confirmation” provision in Va. Code § 16.1-107 1. Disparate treatment a. For insured defendants, it is generally their insurer, not the defendants personally, who is responsible for the judgment and for noting and perfecting the appeal. b. Unlike with a single litigant, getting an appeal bond generated and posted by an insurance carrier—and the layers of management, review, etc., that goes along with it—is much more arduous. c. Virginia Code §16.1-107 makes clear that “no appeal bond shall be required of a plaintiff in a civil case” unless the defendant has asserted a counterclaim. Hence, the statute already treats plaintiffs and defendants differently, rendering it easier for plaintiffs to note and perfect an appeal. Eliminating the “irrevocable confirmation” option for defendants enhances this disparity. d. With limited exceptions, §16.1-107 further waives the bond requirement in its entirety for persons who are indigent. 2. In addition, absent an appeal, opening the gates to more cases in GDC is going to deprive a defendant—who, unlike a plaintiff, doesn’t have a choice of forum—of his or her right to trial by jury. Addressing whether a party’s right to a jury trial is unconstitutionally infringed when he or she must appeal in order to exercise that right, the Supreme Court of Virginia, in Brooks v. Potomac, 149 Va. 427, 141 S.E. 249 (1928), held "[t]he fact that the party is not able to obtain [a trial by jury] in the inferior court is not a deprivation of the right of trial by jury, if provision is made whereby it can be secured upon an appeal by a reasonable, simple procedure" (emphasis added). Such a procedure, which has served Virginians and the court system well for the past ten years, is the “irrevocable confirmation” option of Va. Code § 16.1-107. a. Given that the General Assembly passed the “irrevocable confirmation” bill the same year it raised the GDC limit from $15k to $25k, it appears clear that the General Assembly, with increased access to general district court, thought it a good idea to simplify the process for appeal. b. Here, we are aware of no compelling reason why this option should be eliminated. What we would urge would be: restore and leave in place the “irrevocable confirmation” option in Va. Code § 16.1-107. Alternatively, we would ask the Committee to refer SB1108 for consideration relative to the propriety of instituting at least some form of limited discovery that would help assuage for defendants the impact of proceeding forward in GDC without these safeguards in place

VADA is not opposed in concept to an increase in the jurisdictional limit in GDC. In addition to the other comments we have expressed, our concern with this bill rests on the elimination of the option in Va. Code § 16.1-107 allowing an insured defendant, in lieu of posting an appeal bond, to provide a letter from the defendant’s insurer setting forth an irrevocable certification that the defendant has coverage sufficient to satisfy the amount of the judgment. A. Elimination of “irrevocable confirmation” provision in Va. Code § 16.1-107 1. Allows “a defendant with indemnity coverage through a policy of liability insurance sufficient to satisfy the judgment” rendered in GDC to, in lieu of posting an appeal bond, provide from the defendant’s insurer “a written irrevocable confirmation of coverage in the amount of the judgment.” If defendant's insurer does not provide this confirmation, then the defendant must post a bond. (lines 118-122) 2. This provision has been on the books since 2011 (HB1845), the same year the General Assembly raised the jurisdictional limit in GDC from $15k to its present $25k. a. Introduced by then-Delegate Clifford Athey, now Judge Athey of the Virginia Court of Appeals. b. It passed the House of Delegates 99-0; the Senate, 29-11. 3. No history of abuse of this provision. 4. Strict compliance with the statute has been required. See Damtew v. Jeng, 101 Va. Cir. 89 (Fairfax County 2019) (addressing what constitutes an “irrevocable confirmation of coverage” pursuant to Virginia Code §16.1-107). 5. Purpose of the appeal bond is to make sure there is a source of funds with which to satisfy the judgment. See, e.g., Tauber v. Commonwealth ex rel. Kilgore, 263 Va. 520, 545, 562 S.E.2d 118 (2002) (purpose of appeal bond "is to secure payment of the full judgment amount ... to which a prevailing party is entitled in the event that an appellant does not succeed on appeal"); Greer v. Dillard, 213 Va. 477, 193 S.E.2d 668 (1973) (appeal bonds are "designed to protect the judgment rights of successful litigants"); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 34 Va. App. 63, 67, 537 S.E.2d 626 (2000) ("An appeal bond provides assurances that any judgment that may be rendered on appeal, if perfected, will be satisfied.") a. An insurer promising in writing to provide coverage to a defendant in an amount sufficient to satisfy the judgment accomplishes that end. b. No reason to eliminate it. 6. Particularly given the likelihood that more cases are going to end up in GDC once the jurisdictional limits increase, eliminating the “irrevocable confirmation” option seems to serve no other purpose than to make it more difficult for insured defendants to appeal, without enhancing the rights of plaintiffs to collect on their judgment should they prevail in circuit court. What we would urge, in addition to that set forth in our other written comments, would be: restore and leave in place the “irrevocable confirmation” option in Va. Code § 16.1-107. Alternatively, we would ask the Committee to refer SB1108 for consideration relative to the propriety of instituting at least some form of limited discovery that would help assuage for defendants the impact of proceeding forward in GDC without this safeguard in place.

SB1108 VADA is not opposed in concept to an increase in the jurisdictional limit in GDC. Our concern with this bill rests on the timing of when the increase in limit would go into effect relative to the proposed increase in the minimum automobile liability coverage limits in SB1182.. A. Timing of GDC jurisdictional increase 1. The interplay between this bill and Virginia Code § 38.2-2206 is problematic. a. Presently, liability insurers have the ability to tender an insured’s available coverage and essentially punt the defense of the case to the UIM carrier. b. UIM carrier loses its right of subrogation so long as the insured cooperates with the UIM carrier in the manner provided by statute (Va. Code § 8.01-66.1) (1) To attend his deposition or trial if subpoenaed to appear at least 21 days in advance of either event; (2) To assist in responding to written discovery; (3) To meet with defense counsel for a reasonable period of time after reasonable notice, by phone or in person, within 21 days of being served with any lawsuit and again prior to his deposition and trial; or (4) To notify counsel for the underinsured motorist benefits insurer of any change in address. c. By speaking to the insured’s cooperating in attending depositions or responding to discovery, Va. Code § 38.2-2206 and Va. Code § 8.01-66.1 expressly contemplate actions in circuit court where such discovery exists. d. For defendants facing a potential $50,000.00 exposure in GDC who have only $25/50 limits, there is a risk that their insurer will tender the insured’s available coverage, requiring a UIM insurer to step in and essentially take over the defense. The cooperation required of the insured is effectively diluted at that point, as there are no depositions or written discovery permitted in GDC. e. If the increase in the GDC jurisdictional limit was tied to the increase in mandatory minimum coverage, this problem would not exist. 2. In its original form, SB1108 increased the GDC jurisdictional limit for all cases subject to GDC jurisdiction. In its current form (lines 52-53), the bill restricts this increase to actions “for injury to person, regardless of theory, and any action for wrongful death … .” These cases are the ones that typically are covered by insurance. They also are the cases that typically arise as the result of motor vehicle accidents. This being the case, any increase in the jurisdictional limit for GDC should be tied to an increase in the limits for automobile liability coverage. a. It leaves personal property claims subject to the existing $25k limit (lines 46-47). What we would urge would be tie the increase in the GDC jurisdictional limit to the same timeframe as the increase in minimum insurance coverage limits.. Alternatively, we would ask the Committee to refer SB1108 for consideration relative to the propriety of instituting at least some form of limited discovery that would help assuage for defendants the impact of proceeding forward in GDC without these safeguards in place.

SB1108 VADA is not opposed in concept to an increase in the jurisdictional limit in GDC. Our concern with this bill rests on the timing of when the increase in limit would go into effect relative to the proposed increase in the minimum automobile liability coverage limits in SB1182. A. Timing of GDC jurisdictional increase 1. Ever since GDC was created in 1973, the jurisdictional limit for civil cases in GDC has always been less than or equal to minimum limits for automobile liability coverage. a. liability limits have been $25/50 since 1974 b. GDC jurisdiction since 1974: (1) $10k (1974-1997) (2) $15k (1997-2011) (3) $25k (2011-present) 2. Litigants have been able to order their affairs in reliance upon the fact that civil claims in GDC are never going to exceed the insurance coverage they bought and paid for. 3. In its present form, SB1108 increases the GDC limit to $50k immediately upon the bill’s passing the General Assembly and being signed by the Governor. If this bill becomes law, there is a high likelihood, if not an absolute certainty, that plaintiffs with a civil claim pending in GDC will seek leave to amend the amount of their claim to the new jurisdictional maximum of $50k. a. Fairness concern for defendants with existing $25/50/20 policies who suddenly face the risk of personal exposure. (1) Disproportionately affects those of lesser means who are unable to afford more than a minimum limits policy b. This concern is enhanced by virtue of the fact that a defendant, unlike in circuit court, has essentially no ability to take discovery as to the issues presented in the case. c. While there is pending a separate bill (SB1182) to increase the minimum coverage limits to $50/100/40, it doesn’t take effect until January 1, 2022, and then only as to policies issued on or after that date. (1) Thus, this negative effect of the bill will persist for an entire class of litigants whose policies were issued and remain in effect at the lesser minimum limits. What we would urge would be tie the increase in the GDC jurisdictional limit to the same timeframe as the increase in minimum insurance coverage limits.. Alternatively, we would ask the Committee to refer SB1108 for consideration relative to the propriety of instituting at least some form of limited discovery that would help assuage for defendants the impact of proceeding forward in GDC without these safeguards in place.

Consistent with our memorandum, previously circulated to all members of the House Courts of Justice Committee, the Virginia Academy of Elder Law Attorneys opposes this bill. We believe that SB1123, if passed, would undermine the deference historically given to testators' wishes as stated in their Wills and that it would do more to encourage litigation than it would to protect the elderly. Rather than benefiting the vulnerable elderly, this proposed law would make it more difficult for testators to make Wills that distribute their property in any fashion other than what would otherwise occur without a Will. For example, it is fairly common for parents to "pay" caretaker children for their uncompensated work by leaving them a disproportionate share of the estate, and this law would call these longstanding family arrangements into question. Our clients very often voice concerns related to making sure that their wills do not get challenged in court, and this proposed law could make their fears a reality. For these reasons and for the reasons stated in our memorandum, we respectfully request that this committee vote "No" on SB1123.

We support. Please see prior submitted testimony. Thank you

The City of Portsmouth thanks Senator Lucas for sponsoring this bill. The problematic definitional differences in two subsections of the VA Code (VA Code Section 16.1-228 and VA Code Section 63.2-100), came to light when one of our Assistant City Attorney's encountered a problem during a court hearing. The definition in Subsection 4 of VA Code Section 16.1-228 and 63.2-100 are different. The verbiage in Subsection 4 of VA Code 63.2-100 regarding 'sexual exploitation' is more expansive than the verbiage used in the same Subsection of VA Code Section 16.1-228. Also, Subsection 2 of VA Code Section 63.2-100 is different from the definition in Subsection 2 of VA Code Section 16.1-228 regarding how to consider the actions of a parent or person responsible for providing health care for an abused and neglected child. For judicial interpretation purposes, a definition does not apply if it is not referenced. SB1168 seeks to align the definitions of these two VA Code Subsections, which will also strengthen those definitions in VA Code Section 16.1-228. We thank you in advance for your support of this legislation.

Previous testimony submitted in support of this bill. I also signed up to speak but have not received a link to connect to the meeting.

The Portsmouth City Attorneys Office ask that you support this bill because this bill makes the definition of abused or neglected child found in title 16.1 -228 consistent with the definition of abused or neglected child found in title 63.2 -100 of the Code of Virginia. The definition of an abused or neglected child should be consistent in the code of Virginia for investigation purposes and for initiating court actions in child welfare proceedings.

SB 1168 - Patron -Senator Lucas - Please Support! The crux of the matter is the difference in the definitions in Subsection 4 of VA Code Section 16.1-228 and VA Code Section 63.2-100. Also, Subsection 2 of VA Code Section 63.2-100 is different from the definition in Subsection 2 of VA Code Section 16.1-228 regarding how to consider the actions of a parent or person responsible for providing health care for an abused and neglected child. These inconsistencies in the definitions were brought to our attention by one of the City's Assistant City Attorneys, Ms. Riddick, after she encountered this misalignment in the Code of Virginia while dealing with a matter before the court. For judicial interpretation purposes a definition does not apply unless it is referenced. Hence, there exists a need to align these two VA Code Sections. This bill does not create new language in either Code Section, just adds the existing definitions in Subsections 2 and 4 of VA Code Section 63.2-100 to Subsections 2 and 4 of VA Code Section 16.1-228. I shared my research on this matter with the Virginia Crime Commission who examined the matter and agreed with my findings. They also shared the issues with the Virginia Department of Social Services, who also examined the matter, and agreed with our observations. In conclusion, we collectively agree as to how this oversight may have occurred. From a legislative staff perspective, it probably occurred because a Code Section 63.2 bill would have gone through Courts (maybe General Laws, but most likely Courts) so it would not have occurred to the patron, committee members or drafter to kept the two definitions parallel when they were amending the definitional sections in VA Code Sections in 63.2 The VA Code Section in 63.2 is a little bit 'looser' which is okay in the civil context and for DSS matters. But the VA Code Section 16.1 is definition is more likely to come into play with a criminal charge, and hence the verbiage needs to be more precise. What is 'exploitation?' Is it defined anywhere else in VA Code Sections 18.2 or 26.1? It appears they have been different regarding the term 'exploitation' as far back as a search through the portal would allow. As far as we are aware, there is no substantive reason as to why 'exploitation' appears in VA Code Section 63.2-100, but not in 16.1-228. This bill passed unanimously through Senate Courts and the full Senate, and we hope that this measure will be met with the same levels of support in the House of Delegates. Thank you

I agree all grandparents should see and be a part of grandkids.

I’m a grandma to four beautiful granddaughters. I cannot imagine my life without them. I feel that anyone who loves their grandkids and want to be a part of their lives should have that opportunity. No child should be kept away from grandparents because of the death of a parent.

My grandparents played such an important role in my life. Each child and grandparent deserve the right to be a part of each other’s life. Please pass this bill. Children’s voices need to be heard. Thank you for your consideration.

This is so important to our family. We are raising our grandchildren. When someone looses their son, it shouldn’t mean they lose their grandson. I can’t imagine losing my dad and my grandparents all at okie. Please pass this law for our grandchildren. Warm Regards, Lou Barnette

Although SB1325 is referred to as a bill to petition for visitation of a grandparent, I view it more as a grandchild's rights bill. It is my belief that every child deserves to feel loved, to feel a part of something bigger than themselves, to understand their family history and connections, and to feel safe, accepted, and supported by the people in their lives. This includes the grandparents of a child whose parent is deceased. When a grandparent is denied the opportunity to visit and be a part of their grandchild's life, the child may feel abandoned, confused, and cut off from a large segment of the love and support they previously experienced. Many times when the parents of a deceased child is not allowed to visit their grandchild, the child also loses contact with aunts, uncles, and cousins from that side of the family. Why should a child be denied this right...the right to have ALL the love and support possible in his/her life? With that being said, I fully support SB1325 and urge you to support it as well.

There is no greater fundamental relationship greater than a parent. Both parents play a vital role in the nurture, support, guidance and development of healthy children. The next great relationship is that of grandparents, which are equally as vital and sustainable in development. I can think of no greater loss to these amazing girls than the death of their father. Now more than ever those girls need love and guidance through their grandparents, to help sustain thier fathers love for them. It is truly the next natural extension to the missing link in their lives. Studies show the experiences, the knowledge, the love and relationships of both grandchildren and grandparents are a mutual effective and empowering relationship in our lives. Allowing this family the connection that has been missing for so many years is vital to the future of those girls, and the grandparents that are denied access to them. I can see no greater just action than to allow them regular visitations with their grandchildren. Thank you.

Grandparents play a major role in the emotional and social well being of children. Disrupting already established relationships may be devastating to both the children and the grandparents. Please pass this bill to provide grandparents an opportunity to simply demonstrate this relationship is in the best interest of the children and would have been the wish of a deceased parent.

Please, I urge you to strongly consider passing SB1325. Grandparents deserve that opportunity to have a relationship with their grandchildren. Grandchildren deserve a voice. This is so important and not given enough attention.

This matters. Grandparents matter. Those relationships are irreplaceable and should be protected and fought for.

I respectfully ask for this committee to pass SB1325 for the children, all the precious grandchildren that have been separated from loving, supportive and healthy Grandparents after losing a parent. We tragically lost our oldest son in Nov 2017 and subsequently lost all contact with his 3 beautiful daughters, our only grandchildren all because after a volatile divorce our ex daughter-in-law decided that their Dad’s family wasn’t important anymore. Our Granddaughters not only lost their Daddy they adored but their love and support, their connection to their Dad. All children deserve every bit of the love and support after losing a parent as it’s a very sad time of grief. SB1325 bill will allow Grandparents who have lost a child to present their case while respecting parental rights. It is right and fair for all involved. We were a vital part of our 3 Granddaughters upbringing, we supported, loved and cared for them and all of this love was ripped away from them after they suffered the loss of their Dad. This bill will allow the courts to take in consideration the deceased parents wishes in maintaining the Grandparent/grandchild relationship. Thank you for your support.

Too many grandchildren are being ripped away from the love of their grandparents due to ex-spouses using the grandchildren to seek revenge or to punish the grandparents. Grandparents are essential to molding our next generation and not all grandparents deserve punishment for a vindictive parent of a grandchild. I’ve seen it too many times. The grandchild and the grandparent take the brunt of the pain and suffering in the name of payback/hatred. Please let our good grandparents be a part of their grandchildren’s lives.

I fully support passage of bill SN1325 dealing with visitation for grandparents. Grandparents should have the right to see their grandchildren. Grandparents are usually the ones called upon when parents need someone to watch their kids. A lot of times grandparents are the ones raising their grandchildren. I couldn’t even imagine my grandparents not being in my life. I think parents do this thinking it’ll hurt the grandparents. Yes it does but it actually hurts the grandchildren more. Grandchildren have a right to know their grandparents and to have a relationship with them. So I’m asking you to please pass this bill as I think it’s in the best interest of both grandparents and grandchildren.

As a grandparent of 3 this battle has opened my eyes to a big problem that many grandparents in the state of Virginia are facing! I would like to offer my support and urge the passing of SB135. How many of you are grandparents? Can you imagine yourself in this situation through no fault of your own someone decides for you that you can’t see your precious grand babies! In many cases not only do you suffer the loss of your child but then you must lose your last link to them? And you have to wonder if that grandchild is being told you don’t want to see them or that you don’t love them! This child that has loss a parent now has another unexplained loss. Sometimes that is not the and I understand that also . I work In health care I have seen more than a few children being raised by their grandparents because of parents being unable for what ever reason drugs jail rehab, single parent that needs help getting on their feet . Whatever the case the grand parents are there when needed and deserve to have some rights!

GrandPARENTS bring stability, experiences of a passing generation, and a sense of belonging to grandchildren. Grandparents are motivated by love and well wishes for the next generation, who must carry on, in this our shared destiny. Grandchildren have a right to have a family tree which has not had half of its limbs chopped off. Heritage and roots are meaningful to our development as human beings. We learn from the experiences of those who came before. Please support SB1325. This bill is NOT about taking something away a surviving parent. This bill IS about, not taking something away from a precious child. Thank you for considering my input.

GrandPARENTS bring stability, experiences of a passing generation, and a sense of belonging to grandchildren. Grandparents are motivated by love and well wishes for the next generation, who must carry on, in this our shared destiny. Grandchildren have a right to have a family tree which has not had half of its limbs chopped off. Heritage and roots are meaningful to our development as human beings. We learn from the experiences of those who came before. Please support SB1325. This bill is NOT about taking something away a surviving parent. This bill IS about, not taking something away from a precious child. Thank you for considering my input.

Pass this law ,grandparents are a vital role in their life. I raised my oldest grandson from 6 months of age. I knowthe grandmother personally in this case , has she not suffered enough losing her son . Please for the sake of the children that can’t speak for themselves pass this LAW .

As a single father, I would want my parents to have a legal right to visitation if something happened to me! This bill is the right thing to do!

If this body is to direct judicial attention to key factors involved in a petition for grandparent visitation, those factors should include the overriding constitutional principle -- established by U.S. Supreme Court and Virginia Supreme Court case law -- that a fit parent has the fundamental right to determine the upbringing of his or her child, making the many decisions necessary for that most important of tasks. It must therefore be presumed, according to this precedent, that a fit parent's decision to limit or deny visitation between a particular grandparent and a particular child is in the best interests of that child. All other factors must be viewed in this light. Moreover, if this body is to list such other factors, they should include the impact on the custodial family, including other children in the custodial family, of a court-imposed visitation schedule. Such a schedule is often highly disruptive of family dynamics and priorities. It can leave children not included in the visitation order (often present in blended families) feeling undervalued and left out, with resultant damage in sibling relationships. It can interfere with cherished family customs such as annual vacations. And of course, it almost inevitably reduces the time the child can spent with his or her parents, and with less litigious relatives, outside the parents’ work hours. Court-imposed visitation can also make the continuation of the child’s extracurricular pursuits, from sports to music lessons to involvement in theatrical productions, more difficult or even impossible. Such interference can have long-lasting results on a child’s future, including the child’s educational prospects where scholarships are no longer attainable.

I was surprised that this was even an issue; I don't think many people realize that this can happen to grandparents/grandchildren. Unless a grandparent causes physical or emotional turmoil in a child's life, why shouldn't they be allowed to have visitation? What kind of person would do that to a child and his/her grandparents? Is this done out of spite?

It is horrible to lose your grandparents.

pog

pog

pog bill

My husband and I ask that SB1325 be passed. We lost our oldest son tragically in 2017. He blessed us with 3 beautiful Granddaughters and they have been completely removed from our lives for 4 years now. We have been very loving and supportive Grandparents ever since our Granddaughters were born and we haven’t been allowed to see us or have any contact with us for 9 months before their Daddy died and for the 3 years and 3 months after he has passed. Grandchildren deserve the love, nurturing and affection that only Grandparents can provide. We filed a petition for visitation in 2018 and even though we had proof of being present, loving and supportive Grandparents in their lives, the burden of proof was still on us, as the current law states, to prove harm would come to our Granddaughters by not having us in their lives. This is a huge task for anyone to have to prove. Children need their Grandparents and passing SB1325 will improve the quality of life for many lives.

I raise a great grandchild and I have been the only positive influence in that child’s life. This child would have been in foster care if not for me. However her parents could come in her life and take her away from me although I have now raised her to being a teenager. This would be detrimental for this child. Please consider the numbers of grandparent and great grandparents that are in similar situations as my own. Please consider the sacrifices that grandparents make for their grandchildren and stand in unison with the thousands of grandparents across the state that support one of the best bills that has ever been proposed to the VA General Assembly.

I urge you to support bill 1325. Grandparents are integral part of children’s lives. My grandmother was very influential in my life and I cannot imagine I would be the person that I am without her influence. Seventy percent of children are raised now by a grandparent or great grandparent at my local primary school. Grandparents need the support of legislation to keep them in those children’s lives and not just a whim when it’s convenient for those parents. We need to protect them legally from being removed out of a child’s life. This is damaging and detrimental to children. We need to protect these most vulnerable individuals that do not have a voice. Again, please consider the influence of your own grandparents and imagine your life without that. We need to surround children with more love 💕 not less!

I asking that you pass this bill for grandparents to be able to have visitation rights for so many grandparents! Not only is it hurting the grandparents but the grandchildren who want so much ch to see each other denying this visitation is wrong on both ends. Heartaches so deep that it crushes the hearts of my he ones being denied the right to see their loved ones life is so Unpredictable that’s why I beg you to pass this bill to help what’s wrong and make it right in the lives of grandparents and grandchildren bring hearts together not put aside like they don’t matter because they truly do!! In our own lives our foundation can be so shaken by losing ones child and then not be able to visit their grandchildren and the grandchildren not be allowed to have the right to visit their grandparents hearts are broken to much because of this! Please vote yes to help make a Hugh change in the law that helps grandparents be involved in their grandchildren’s life’s , how amazing that would be , I ask agsin Please makes this law come to life for so very many people!!!

I am writing in support of SB1325. I as a Grandmother can’t imagine not getting to be part of my grandchildren’s lives. Your children are part of you and if you lost them as they have the only thing that could ever help to heal is your grandchild. We love our grandchildren with all our hearts and they deserve to have the love of their family even if their parent passes away they need the love and support of their Grandparents.

I urge you to pass this bill, allowing grandparents to have rights to visitation with their grandchildren and the children to have rights to loving family support. I speak from my personal experience. My father died when I was 8 years old and my mother became addicted to opioids and other drugs shortly after my dad's death. My younger brothers and I were subjected to abuse and neglect during our mother's addiction. At times, I worried whether we would survive. My mother did a pretty good job of keeping us away from our grandparents because she knew I would tell them what was going on and they would step in to save my brothers and me. CPS utterly failed us. Local law enforcement utterly failed us. Both had received requests to check on us and there was at least 1 report of abuse and neglect made. Neither CPS nor any officer actually investigated the matter and it was all closed out as unfounded. Of course, I was about 11 years old at this time and nobody from either CPS or the law enforcement agency came to speak with me. I only learned that these requests and complaints had been made at a much later time. The system failed my brothers and me. We continued to be beaten, suffer neglect, and had to experience other things I wish I could burn from my memory. But do you know who didn't fail us? Our grandparents. One day, I was finally able to tell my maternal grandmother everything that had been going on and all that was being done to us. She got us out of there and saved us. Not CPS, not law enforcement...my grandmother saved us. It petrifies me to think what could have happened to us if I wasn't able to get word to my grandmother and/or she wasn't able to get us out of that horrible situation. My mother kept us away from our grandparents and other family as much as possible during that time, just to hide the abuse and neglect we were suffering and to keep people from knowing about it. My grandmother had tried to have CPS and law enforcement check on us, but she was told grandparents have no rights to their grandchildren and if our mom wanted to keep us away, then there was nothing that could be done. Even the reported abuse and neglect complaint was cleared with only a phone call as unfounded. So, I urge you, please pass this bill. It very well may save a child's life. Thank you.

When the hatred towards me from others trickled down to my children and our bond was severed, it also severed the bond for my father. He is the most loving grandfather, he has paid for anything that I could not provide on my own for the children. He is an amazing man, both in his career as a partner in a SWVA law firm and as a ballroom dancer. For years he took my daughter to the father daughter ball and has taught her how to dance. He’s been to all of their events, PTA meetings, award ceremonies, school lunches, band recitals, family traditions , and was an active help in driving them to their practices and even grandchildren sitting when I had to work. The smiles he brought to their faces throughout the years has been priceless. There is no love or bond quite like the ones with grandparents. It breaks my heart that my father has been cut off bc of the control and manipulation of the other side of their family. My mother and stepfather are now allowed to see the children but at first they were completely cut off. She has to play their game of manipulation to see her grandchildren. The relationship the children had with her was a magical one and now it is one that is controlled by what this parent wants and not what the children would want. I have several friends who have lost their grandchildren when their own child died and the other parent took advantage of the laws in place to cut them out of the children. I can not imagine my life full of memories of my loving grandparents. I can not imagine how much my own children are truly missing out on now with me pushed from the picture. Children should have rights to know their family and grow healthy and fulfilling relationships with them. Especially if they have lost their own child. Please consider making amendments to the laws that keep families separated and broken. Grandparents are one of the most invaluable parts of our life and a huge part of what shapes us into who we are.

We have been denied any contact with our 4 year old grandson for the last 3 years after the suicide of his father - our son. Not only is he missing out on a relationship with us, his grandparents, he is also missing out on a relationship with his half brother (from our son’s first marriage). Up until our son’s suicide, we had a good relationship with our grandsons mother, so we are at a loss as to why she cut off all communication with us. We went to court to try to get visitation but were told that we had to prove that our grandson was being harmed from not having contact with us. How is that even possible for a 1 1/2 year old to express a desire to have a relationship with his grandparents and/or his half brother. This is so unfair. We feel that we have so much love to give to our grandson. Not only did we lose our son to suicide- we have also lost our grandson! Will he ever know how much we love him? Please help us!

What should be the rights of law abiding and upstanding grandparents are taken away on a daily basis by individuals (parents, grandparents, other family members) because of their own individual dislike for the other set of grandparents. This needs to stop. The children don't understand and are often misled. Walls are built which leads to more hatred and anguish that only hurts the children.. Please I beg you to pass this bill for all the children being done wrong because of adults with unhappy hearts.

I am asking for support of SB1325 in its entirety. I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child, but adding the additional loss of a relationship with a grandchild is unfathomable. A child needs and deserves all of the love and support they can get, especially as they try to cope with their grief. As I walk down memory lane with my only child, I am always touched by the stories she tells of my mother and father, and what an irreplaceable part of her life they were. It was the little things - like working in the garden and canning tomatoes - that bring joy to her heart. Even though she lost them in her early teenage years, their positive loving influence cannot be diminished. I wish for every child to be able to have those loving memories of their grandparents. I especially wish that for children who have lost a parent, because they need that love and support even more. I ask you to please vote in favor of SB1325 to help grandparents and grandchildren spend time together and make their own beautiful memories. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I respectfully ask that you consider passage of bill SB1325. It is my opinion that the grandparent relationship is very important in child rearing. This is a very special level of security for the child. In the case of losing a parent and then losing contact with their grandparents, the child will suffer more unnecessarily through no fault of their own. In fact, I would consider this to double the hurt from the loss. This is especially true when the grandparents have been an integral part of the child’s life up to that point and there is proof of that. The focus is what is best for the child. Passage of this bill is so very important on many different levels to protect the child or children from undue hurt and to maintain that special bond that has been formed. Thank you.

I 100% support Daxton's law, SB1325. Please vote yes to grant grandparents visiting privileges with their grandchildren. It is imperative that grandchildren have visitation and communication with their grandparents. They play a vital part in a child's life. Grandchildren should be allow to continue a bond with their grandparents.

I urge you to please pass this bill so our grandchildren can have a voice .

Please vote yes on bill 1325. I am a grandmother raising my only grandchild. And what a blessing it is. I think about what if the situation was reversed. What if we couldn’t be a part of each others’ life. How devastating it would be for both of us. It is a cruel act to withhold love and socialization from a child and a grandparent. A child without a grandparent misses out on so much knowledge . And if that child is kept from grandparents as a child it will truly affect him as an adult. A person deserves to know where they come from so they can get to where they need to be as an adult. Please consider this bill and let these grandparents /children bond. Thank you.

I 100% support Daxtons Law. SB 1325 means a lot to me personally. I am a childhood friend of Daxtons grandmother and you couldn’t ask for a better person. This is such a tragedy to begin with and for her to be kept from her only grandson is uncalled for. I am also a grandmother of only one grandson. It’s heartbreaking to here story after story of grandparents being kept away for selfish reason. There needs to be laws in place to prevent this from going any further. Please please pass this Bill. No child needs to robbed on unconditional love and support and in a lot of cases , a soft place to land. Grandparents need right. Daxton needs his grandmother and to know how much his father truly loved him. He has a right to know his heritage. Once again, I am asking for this bill to pass and many grandparents like this a voice. He lost his father , he doesn’t need to loose his grandmother too.

Please vote YES on HB 1325. As a grandparent I can not imagine being denied visitation with my grandchildren. The unconditional love, and stability that Grandparents offer their grandchildren is priceless. All grandchildren deserve to know their family and learn about their heritage. All parents need the security of knowing if something happens to them their children will not suffer additional loss of their family! Please pass HB 1325 in its entirety for grandparents and the children.

Please vote YES on HB 1325. Every year people spend millions of dollars to discover and learn about their ancestory. Little children should not have to experience the joy of having a grandparent in that manner. As fulfilling as DNA and ancestry research may be, it will never warm a heart or tummy, as much as grandmother's cookies or a ride on grandpa's tractor. Grandparents have a lot to offer their grandchildren. Perhaps, grandparents have no legal obligation to their grandchildren, but they certainly have a moral obligation, born of love, great compassion, and the desire to see the little ones thrive and succeed. The proposed Bill does not diminish the fundamental right of a parent to raise their child. It simply recognizes that children have rights too, being the right not to have their heritage canceled, and the right to have loving grandparents. The passage of this Bill has the potential to clarify and create uniformity in the application of the existing visitation statute in Virginia as it applies to grandparents. Thank you for your kind consideration of this Bill, it means so much to many.

Please give a lot of consideration in passing this. Grandparents play such an influential part of a child’s life. Every child should have the right to know their grandparents.

Growing up in this area is great because grandparents can play a vital role in lives. My niece was raised by her grandmother. Her parent were divorced and her mother was able to be present a-lot due to her work schedule. My niece would have been lost without my mother her grandmother raising her because parents were unavailable to raise her like we were raised. Many kids depend on their grandparents for stability especially if there is an absent parent. Please pass this bill for the sake of our children. Our children needs their grandparents. Parent don't always make the best decisions and grandparents need to be present.

Growing up in this area is great because grandparents can play a vital role in lives. My niece was raised by her grandmother. Her parent were divorced and her mother was able to be present a-lot due to her work schedule. My niece would have been lost without my mother her grandmother raising her because parents were unavailable to raise her like we were raised. Many kids depend on their grandparents for stability especially if there is an absent parent. Please pass this bill for the sake of our children. Our children needs their grandparents. Parent don't always make the best decisions and grandparents need to be present.

Please vote and support SB1325 in its entirety. As a retired middle school teacher, parent, and grandparent, I urge committee members to consider the value of interaction between nurturing grandparents and their grandchildren. This relationship becomes even more important when a parent is deceased or otherwise deemed incapable of being in a child’s life. The role of a loving grandparent(s) in children’s lives is invaluable to a child. On behalf of the children, please be the voice of change in the current law. Respectfully, Mary Kathryn Looney

I want to say I fully support Bill 1325. I had the honor of being raised by my grandmother. Due to divorce my 3 older brothers and myself lived with our grandparents starting when I was 4 years old. Believe me a child needs their family on both mothers and fathers side. Especially after something traumatic. A loss of a parent or divorce. They need to see all their family loves them and wants them. My oldest brother had one son. When his son was 21 years old he was killed in a hunting accident. He left behind a one month old son. If it had not been for that little boy my brother, his grandfather would have never survived. Grandparents need their grandkids as much as the kids need them. I can’t believe this is not a law already. Please give them the rights to be a big part of their grandchildren’s lives.

Members of the committee I am sending this letter, asking and praying you will pass the grandparents rights law SB 135. I have not seen my grandson since the day he had to testify in court on behalf of his father. Who shot and killed my daughter. This has been the worst thing anyone could have to deal with in their life, please vote yes on the bill SB1325 thank you

In today's society, we have many grandparents raising their grandchildren (and even great grandchildren), since the children were newborns. We ask these people to come forward at times of crisis to support the child; however, we do not have the laws to protect their rights. Families consist of more than a single couple and their children living under the same roof in today's world. Families are diverse and we need to change with the world we live in. If grandparents' rights aren't protected, we may see a backlash in the community of grandparents afraid to become involved in the lives of these children, when we so desperately need them. We need to support them, the love they share, and the dedication and commitment to these children before we lose their support.