An Act to amend and reenact §§ 20-91 and 32.1-268 of the Code of Virginia, relating to divorce decrees; reports of divorce; social security numbers or other control numbers.
HB556 amends Virginia’s divorce and vital records laws to require that final divorce decrees include, if known and available, each party’s Social Security number or an alternative control number issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. It also updates the reporting requirements for divorces and annulments so that clerks of court must provide the State Registrar with the information needed to prepare the report, including those identifying numbers when available, along with other required data such as the parties’ ages and the number of minor children involved.
The bill primarily affects § 20-91, which governs grounds for divorce and the contents of divorce decrees, and § 32.1-268, which governs reports of divorces and annulments. In practical terms, it standardizes identification information in divorce records and strengthens the administrative link between courts and the State Registrar for recordkeeping and reporting purposes. The bill does not change the substantive grounds for divorce, but it does alter what information must be included in decrees and transmitted by court clerks.
HB556 changes Virginia law by requiring divorce decrees to include, when available, a Social Security number or DMV-issued control number for each party, and by directing clerks to include that information in reports of divorce and annulment sent to the State Registrar. The affected statutes are §§ 20-91 and 32.1-268 of the Code of Virginia. The practical impact is on divorcing parties, attorneys, and court clerks, who must provide and process additional identifying information for court and vital records administration.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history indicating opposition or debate, and the bill was enacted as Chapter 402. Based on that context, the overall sentiment appears neutral to favorable, with the measure treated as a routine administrative update rather than a controversial policy change.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any concerns existed, they would most likely have centered on privacy or administrative burden related to collecting and transmitting Social Security numbers or DMV control numbers, but the record provided does not show any expressed objections, amendments, or divided votes.