An Act to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-278.15 and 20-124.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to custody and visitation; possession or consumption of authorized substances.
HB942 amends Virginia’s child custody and visitation statutes to address how courts may consider a parent’s possession or consumption of “authorized substances” in custody and visitation cases. The bill updates §§ 16.1-278.15 and 20-124.2 of the Code of Virginia, which govern juvenile and domestic relations court authority in custody, visitation, and support matters. Its core effect is to clarify that a court may not base a custody or visitation determination solely on a parent’s lawful use of a substance, while still allowing the court to consider conduct that affects the child’s welfare.
The bill also preserves and restates existing provisions on custody and support, including parenting education requirements, support for certain adult children who remain in high school or are severely disabled, and the ability to direct support payments to a special needs trust or ABLE account. It continues the broad definition of “legitimate interest” in custody cases, including certain relatives and, in limited circumstances, a previously terminated parent meeting specified conditions. Overall, the bill is aimed at refining how courts evaluate parental fitness and child welfare when lawful substance use is involved.
HB942 changes Virginia family law by amending two key custody and visitation statutes, affecting how juvenile and domestic relations courts evaluate evidence in disputes involving parents’ use of legal substances. The bill’s practical impact is to limit adverse custody or visitation decisions based solely on possession or consumption of authorized substances, while leaving intact the court’s broad discretion to protect the child’s best interests. It also leaves in place existing support, education, and special-needs payment provisions in the same statutory sections.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote breakdown, so there is no detailed public debate to assess. Based on the enacted chapter text, the bill appears to have been treated as a targeted family-law clarification rather than a broad policy overhaul. The absence of recorded opposition in the provided materials suggests the measure was not highly contentious in the available legislative history.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between parental rights and child protection: supporters would view the bill as preventing unfair custody consequences from lawful substance use, while critics may worry it could make it harder for courts to respond to substance-related parenting concerns. Another possible issue is how courts will distinguish between mere lawful possession or consumption and actual impairment or risk to the child. No specific named opponents or supporters are identified in the provided materials.