An Act to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-228 and 63.2-100 of the Code of Virginia, relating to fictive kin; definition.
HB1327 amends Virginia’s child welfare definitions in §§ 16.1-228 and 63.2-100 to add “fictive kin” to the list of recognized caregivers and to align that term across the juvenile and social services codes. In Virginia law, fictive kin generally refers to a person who is not related by blood or marriage but has a significant, family-like relationship with a child or family. By updating these definitions, the bill is intended to make it easier for child welfare agencies and courts to identify and use trusted nonrelative caregivers when making placement, custody, and service decisions.
The bill also makes related definitional changes in the abuse-and-neglect framework, which can affect how children are placed, who may be considered for kinship care, and how agencies document family connections in child welfare cases. Because the bill is limited to definitions, it does not create a new program or mandate by itself, but it can influence how existing child welfare statutes are applied in practice.
HB1327 changes state law by amending the definitional sections of the juvenile and social services code, specifically §§ 16.1-228 and 63.2-100. The practical effect is to broaden the set of adults who may be treated as appropriate caregivers or placement resources in child welfare matters, especially in kinship and foster care contexts. This can affect local departments of social services, courts handling abuse, neglect, custody, and placement cases, and families seeking to place children with trusted nonrelatives.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote breakdown, so there is no detailed public debate captured here. Based on the bill’s enactment, the overall sentiment appears to have been favorable or at least noncontroversial, with lawmakers willing to adopt a definitional update that supports child placement flexibility and recognizes existing family-like caregiving relationships.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any concerns existed, they would likely have centered on how broadly “fictive kin” should be defined, whether the term could complicate placement decisions, or whether expanding recognition of nonrelatives might affect parental rights or agency discretion. However, the record provided does not show any active opposition or disputed amendments.