A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 19.2 a chapter numbered 1.4, consisting of sections numbered 19.2-11.15, 19.2-11.16, and 19.2-11.17, relating to restorative justice practices.
HB489 creates a new chapter in Title 19.2 of the Code of Virginia establishing a legal framework for restorative justice practices. It defines key terms such as restorative justice practice, restorative justice facilitator, and restorative justice communication, and describes restorative justice as a voluntary process in which people who caused harm, people harmed, and other participants meet with a facilitator to address harm, trauma, accountability, and community repair. The bill also provides that, when the victim, defendant, and Commonwealth’s attorney agree in writing, participation in restorative justice cannot be used as evidence or treated as an admission of guilt, delinquency, or civil liability in later proceedings.
The bill further protects restorative justice communications from being admitted into evidence or discovered in legal proceedings, and limits testimony about those communications, while preserving exceptions for threats of death or serious harm, compliance with other laws, court-ordered reporting, waiver by the parties, and disclosure of otherwise admissible evidence. It also amends Virginia’s child abuse and neglect reporting law to add restorative justice facilitators to the list of mandatory reporters. A facilitator who suspects a child participant is abused or neglected must report that suspicion even if the information was learned during a confidential restorative justice process.
In practical terms, the bill would have expanded confidentiality and privilege protections for restorative justice participants and facilitators, while also imposing a new statutory reporting duty on facilitators in child welfare situations. It would have affected criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings by limiting how restorative justice participation and communications could be used, and it would have amended § 63.2-1509 to include restorative justice facilitators among the professionals required to report suspected child abuse or neglect.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s posture is neutral-to-supportive in concept, but the measure ultimately did not become law, failing to pass from conference. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is little direct evidence of debate in the available record. The structure of the bill suggests the main policy balance was between encouraging candid participation in restorative justice by protecting confidentiality and ensuring child safety by preserving mandatory reporting obligations.
The most notable point of tension is the interaction between confidentiality in restorative justice and mandatory child abuse reporting. The bill expressly says that confidentiality does not excuse a restorative justice facilitator from reporting suspected abuse or neglect, which indicates concern about protecting children even within a confidential process. Another likely issue is the scope of the evidentiary privilege and whether it could limit later litigation or criminal proceedings too broadly, though the bill includes several exceptions and preserves admissibility of evidence that is otherwise independently discoverable.
HB489 would have added a new restorative justice chapter to Title 19.2 and amended § 63.2-1509, thereby changing both criminal procedure and child abuse reporting law. It would have created statutory confidentiality and privilege rules for restorative justice communications, limited the evidentiary use of participation in restorative justice, and required restorative justice facilitators to report suspected child abuse or neglect as mandatory reporters. The bill would have affected participants in restorative justice programs, facilitators, prosecutors, victims, defendants, courts, and child protective services.
The available record suggests the bill was intended to support restorative justice by giving participants confidentiality and legal protection, while also preserving child-protection safeguards. There are no committee transcripts or vote details to show detailed debate, but the bill’s failure to pass from conference indicates it did not secure final agreement. The policy design implies broad interest in restorative justice, tempered by caution about privilege, admissibility, and mandatory reporting obligations.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between confidentiality in restorative justice and the need for disclosure in legal and child-protection contexts. Supporters would favor the bill’s protections for candid participation and reduced use of restorative justice communications in court, while opponents or skeptics may have worried about limiting evidence or creating uncertainty in criminal and civil cases. The mandatory reporting requirement for restorative justice facilitators also stands out as a potential concern, because it overrides confidentiality when child abuse or neglect is suspected and could affect how restorative justice programs operate.