Skilling's Report on Senate Courts of Justice hearing 2-24-2014 and HB933
D'Arcy L McGreer
Below is Kenneth Skilling’s report on the Senate Courts of Justice Committee session and its vote on HB933.
Senate Courts of Justice Committee Approves Child Support Increase Bill
The Senate Courts of Justice Committee reported out the child support increase bill (HB 933) early February 24, after a very brief discussion lasting no more than 15 minutes. The bill now goes to the Senate floor, where approval appears almost certain.
The bill passed, with only one senator (Norment) voting against it.
HB 933 was one of more than 20 House bills on the Senate committee's agenda. On the docket posted in advance of the meeting, these bills were listed in numerical order. The meeting was scheduled to start at 8 a.m., and when I enquired from committee staff just before the meeting about the order in which the bills would be taken, I was told that HB 933 would be considered first, ahead of all the other bills on the docket. The reason, I was told, was that Del. Vivian Watts, the sponsor of the bill, had been the first to sign up on a list for House bill sponsors. Fortunately, I had anticipated that such a change might be made at the last minute, and had traveled down to Richmond on the previous day, to ensure that I would be present at the hearing at the beginning.
Senators Marsh, McEachin, Saslaw, Norment, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Puller, Obenshain, Petersen, Stuart, McDougle, and Wexton were present during the short time devoted to consideration of the bill. D'Arcy McGreer, John Westbrook, and I had spoken to most of these senators or their legislative aides during our visit to Richmond on February 17. However, during the hearing only Marsh, Norment, and Wexton commented on the bill or asked any questions about it.
Del. Watts introduced the bill, stressing that it was an "update" of child support numbers that had remained the same for many years. She said the numbers followed the recommendations of an economist who specialized in such matters and who was used by many states. She was asked by Co-chairman Marsh whether there was any opposition to the bill, and she replied that the bill had wide support, mentioning lawyers' organizations, among others. She also emphasized that the guideline was only presumptive, and judges could depart from it in appropriate circumstances.
After Del. Watts had spoken, Marsh asked if anyone wanted to comment on the bill. Two witnesses spoke in favor of the bill, one representing the divorce lawyers and the other the Virginia Poverty Law Center. Sen. Norment asked the divorce lawyer whether judges typically followed the guideline in their child support awards. The lawyer said that they nearly always did, although in the Tidewater area it was not unusual for judges to comment -- even when using the guideline for their awards -- that the guideline amounts were inadequate, because of the high cost of living there.
A woman from the Virginia Poverty Law Center made a very brief statement in favor of the bill.
Two witnesses spoke against the bill, Robbie Cunningham, from Richmond, and myself. We were given very short shrift by Co-chairman March.
After I had introduced myself, and commented that, despite what the committee had heard, there was opposition to the bill, Senator Marsh interrupted and asked whether I was in favor or opposed to the bill. I said that, in the view of fathers' organizations, the proper course of action was to hold over the bill until 2015, since it was based on an interim report by the child support review panel, which had not said anything about several of the issues that were before it. I was about to provide a very brief summary of the objections to the bill when Sen. Marsh interrupted again, and indicated that I should finish, because there were other witnesses to be heard from. The only point of substance that I had a chance to make was that there was already a major problem with nonpayment of child support, much of it because of an inability to pay, and HB 933 would make the situation worse.
Robbie Cunningham told the committee that he was a member of the board of directors for the African American Family Initiative in Richmond, and he opposed the bill, which would negatively impact the noncustodial parent and the child. Del. Watts had said that "the economics of raising a child has changed," Robbie said, but the overall economy had changed too, and not in a good way ,
The committee then voted on the bill, and went on to other business. Voting was as follows: yeas -- Marsh, McEachin, Saslaw, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Puller, Obenshain, Petersen, Wexton; nays -- Norment; abstentions -- McDougle.
Craig Burshem, director of the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement, and DCSE staffer Alice Burshem, who has the main responsibility for the child support review panel, were at the hearing, but did not testify.
Personally, I found the Senate committee's treatment of this important bill to be very unsatisfactory. If enacted, the bill will affect hundreds of thousands of families in Virginia, but it seemed that senators did not want to hear any arguments against the measure (and indeed were content with the most cursory statements in favor of the bill).
This is likely to be the last stage at which the merits of HB 933 will be debated in Richmond. The lesson for the future, in my view, is that we must continue to present our point of view when family policy issues are discussed there. I emphatically do not agree with those few among us who argue that nothing can be done in the General Assembly until we have achieved a higher political profile. I don't see how we can get new people to join us if we cannot show what we are doing in Richmond. Nevertheless, in my view, we must put more effort into building up effective local support groups for fathers in crisis situations. These groups will provide an entry point for younger fathers who can help to establish a greater presence, and make us more influential. We also must continue to try to work with other groups that share our objectives.
Kenneth Skilling