An Act to amend and reenact § 20-124.2 of the Code of Virginia, relating to custody and visitation arrangements for minor; custody evaluation<em style="">; report</em>.
HB768 revises Virginia’s child custody and visitation statute to clarify and expand what courts may consider and order in domestic relations cases. The bill keeps the core “best interests of the child” standard, but it adds or reinforces several procedural and substantive provisions: courts may use the term “parenting time” instead of “visitation,” may consider evidence of a deceased or incapacitated parent’s consent in certain grandparent visitation cases, and may order child support to be paid into a special needs trust or ABLE account upon request. It also confirms support obligations for certain adult children still in high school or for severely disabled adult children who meet specified criteria, and it authorizes courts to order health care coverage or cash medical support.
The bill also strengthens court authority in custody matters by expressly allowing custody evaluations or independent mental health/psychological evaluations, and by requiring parties to provide custody orders to a child’s school within three business days when the order affects school pickup or enrollment. Schools are not required to interpret or enforce the order, but they must receive a copy. In addition, the bill preserves existing authority for courts to enforce custody orders and to bar a parent convicted of certain serious offenses from filing custody or visitation petitions for up to 10 years when doing so is in the child’s best interests.
A second major component of HB768 is a study directive. The Board of Psychology, working with the Board of Medicine, must convene a stakeholder advisory group to examine the shortage of qualified mental health professionals willing to serve as court-appointed experts in family law cases, especially custody evaluations. The group must study whether licensing complaints, investigations, compensation, liability, certification, training, or other regulatory issues are discouraging participation, and it must recommend reforms to increase the pool of available evaluators and expert witnesses.
The bill’s impact on state law is to modestly expand and clarify Virginia’s custody and support framework while adding an administrative study aimed at improving access to court-appointed mental health experts. It affects parents, grandparents, children, family law practitioners, judges, schools, and mental health professionals who perform custody evaluations. It also creates a formal reporting obligation to the General Assembly on possible regulatory or statutory changes for evaluator availability.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill advanced through subcommittee, committee, and floor votes unanimously in both chambers, and the recorded votes show no opposition. The main point of concern reflected in the legislation itself is not opposition to the custody changes, but the practical difficulty of recruiting enough qualified mental health professionals for family court appointments, which the study provision is designed to address.
HB768 amends § 20-124.2 of the Code of Virginia governing custody and visitation, adding procedural requirements for school notification, clarifying court authority over custody evaluations and support orders, and expanding treatment of grandparent visitation and adult-child support in specified circumstances. It also directs the Board of Psychology and Board of Medicine to study the availability of court-appointed mental health experts and report recommendations to the General Assembly, potentially leading to future regulatory or statutory changes affecting family law experts and domestic relations practice.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad bipartisan support and little to no visible opposition. It passed committee and floor votes unanimously in both the House and Senate, suggesting the custody, support, and school-notification provisions were viewed as practical clarifications rather than controversial policy changes. The study component also indicates legislative recognition of a professional-services shortage in custody cases, with the General Assembly seeking information rather than immediate conflict over a final solution.
No significant opposition is reflected in the voting record or available discussion. The only notable issue embedded in the bill is the concern that licensing-board complaints, investigation processes, compensation, liability exposure, and related regulatory burdens may deter psychologists and psychiatrists from accepting court appointments in custody cases. The bill does not resolve that issue directly; instead, it creates a stakeholder advisory group to evaluate whether reforms are needed. Another potential area of sensitivity is the expanded ability to use evidence of a deceased or incapacitated parent’s consent in grandparent visitation cases, but no recorded controversy appears in the provided materials.