An Act to amend and reenact § 16.1-279.1 of the Code of Virginia, relating to family abuse protective orders; conditions imposed upon issuance.
HB1363 amends Virginia’s family abuse protective order statute, § 16.1-279.1, to expand and clarify the kinds of relief a court may include when issuing a protective order. The bill authorizes courts to impose a broad range of conditions designed to protect petitioners and household members, including no-contact provisions, exclusive possession of a residence, utility protections, temporary use of a vehicle, alternative housing requirements, counseling or treatment, possession of a companion animal, and other relief necessary for safety. It also expressly addresses cases involving incarcerated or recently incarcerated respondents and preserves the court’s ability to order temporary child custody or visitation arrangements as part of the protective order.
The bill also allows courts to issue temporary child support orders when a protective order is entered, with those orders ending when a separate support determination is made or when the protective order expires. In addition, it extends the possible duration of a protective order from a maximum of two years to up to four years when the respondent has been subject to a prior order within the preceding 10 years, and it gives extension motions docket priority. These changes strengthen the remedial tools available in family abuse cases and broaden judicial discretion in crafting protective relief.
HB1363 directly amends § 16.1-279.1 of the Code of Virginia, expanding the statutory list of conditions a court may impose in family abuse protective order cases and clarifying the court’s authority over housing, utilities, devices, vehicles, companion animals, counseling, child support, and related safety measures. The bill affects petitioners seeking protection, respondents subject to protective orders, and courts handling domestic violence matters, while also touching related statutes governing child support and family law procedures.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote debate, but the enacted chapter text suggests the bill was treated as a protective, victim-safety measure. Its provisions are consistent with a generally supportive policy approach toward domestic violence survivors, emphasizing court flexibility and longer-lasting protection in repeat-offender situations. No formal opposition is documented in the provided materials.
The main potential points of contention are the expanded scope of judicial authority and the longer duration of protective orders in repeat cases. Respondents may be affected by orders requiring housing, utility payments, device access restrictions, counseling, or temporary child support, while petitioners and advocates are likely to support these tools as necessary for safety and stability. The bill also raises practical issues around enforcement, property use, and balancing respondent rights with emergency protective relief, but no specific disagreements are recorded in the provided history.