Support orders; retroactivity, arrearages, party's incarceration.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 348 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on SB 348.
You're tracking SB 348
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 348 — Support orders; retroactivity, arrearages, party's incarceration.
Last action — Approved by Governor-Chapter 527 (effective 7/1/22)
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Senate
-
✓Passed House of Delegates
-
✓To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2022. Enacted.
Signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin (Republican) on April 11, 2022.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
HighHow often bills like it became law.
-
Enacted
Current position in the legislative process.
-
1 sponsor
1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Mixed recorded votes
10 passed, 1 failed in recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
Support orders; retroactivity; arrearages; party's incarceration. Makes various changes to provisions of law related to child and spousal support orders, including (i) providing that in cases in which jurisdiction over child support or spousal support has been divested from the juvenile and domestic relations district court and no final support order has been entered, any award for child support or spousal support in the circuit court shall be retroactive to the date on which the proceeding was commenced by the filing of the action in the juvenile and domestic relations district court and (ii) specifying that prejudgment interest on child support should be retroactive to the date of filing.The bill provides that a party's incarceration for 180 or more consecutive days shall not be deemed voluntary unemployment or underemployment for the purposes of calculating child support and imputing income for such calculation. The bill further provides that a party's incarceration for 180 or more days shall be a material change of circumstances upon which a modification of a child support order may be based. The provisions of the bill related to imputation of income apply only to petitions for child support and petitions for a modification of a child support order commenced on or after July 1, 2022, and do not create a material change in circumstances for the purposes of modifying a child support order if a parent was incarcerated prior to July 1, 2022, and the incarcerated party cannot establish a material change in circumstances other than incarceration.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
263 added · 249 removedPlain-language change summary
The amendment to SB 348 clarifies the jurisdictional authority of courts regarding child custody and support cases. It specifies that when a divorce suit is filed in circuit court, the juvenile and domestic relations district courts cannot make further orders on custody, guardianship, visitation, or support if those issues are raised for a hearing in circuit court. This change ensures that child support or spousal support orders made by the circuit court can be retroactive to the start of the proceedings.
SESSION ENROLLED VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY ––-- 2022 SESSION CHAPTER E527 An Act to amend and reenact §§ 16.1-244, 20-78.2, 20-103, 20-108.1, and 63.2-1918 of the Code of party'sVirginia, incarcerationrelating notto deemedchild voluntarysupport unemploymentand orspousal underemployment.ldsupport; support obligaRions;
Oretroactivity; [S 348] L Approved L Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
Echild 1.support obligations;
Thatparty's §§incarceration 16.1-244,not 20-78.2,deemed 20-103,voluntary 20-108.1,unemployment andor 63.2-1918underemployment. of the Code of Virginia are amendDd and§ 16.1-244.
[S 348] Approved April 11, 2022 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1.
That §§ 16.1-244, 20-78.2, 20-103, 20-108.1, and 63.2-1918 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 16.1-244.
Nothing contained in this law shall deprive any other court of the concurrent jurisdiction to determine the custody of children upon a writ of habeas corpus under the law, or to determine the custody, guardianship, visitation or support of children when such custody, guardianship, visitation or support is incidental to the determination of causes pending in such courts, nor deprive a circuit court of jurisdiction to determine spousal support in a suit for separate maintenance.
However, when a suit for divorce has been filed in a circuit court, in which the custody, guardianship, visitation or suBportsupport of children of the parties or spousal support is raised by the pleadings and a hearing, including 4a pendente lite hearing, is set by the circuit court on any such issue for a date certain or on a motions docket to be heard within 21 days of the filing, the juvenile and domestic relations district courts shall bEbe divested of the right to enter any further decrees or orders to determine custody, guardianship, visitation or support when raised for such hearing and such matters shall be determined by the circuit court unless both parties agreed to a referral to the juvenile court.
In any case in which the jurisdiction of the juvenile and domestic relations district court has been divested pursuant to this section and no final support order has been entered, any award for child support or spousal support in the circuit court shall be retroactive to the date on which the proceeding was commenced by the filing of the action in the juvenile and domestic relations district court, provided that the petitioner exercised due diligence in the anyservice such case to a commissioner for a hearing or shall deprive the juvenile and domestic relationsto refer district courts of the jurisdictionrespondent. to enforce its valid orders prior to the entry of a conflicting order of any circuit court for any period during which the order was in effect or to temporarily place a child in the custody of any person when that child has been adjudicated abused, neglected, in need of services or delinquent subsequent to the order of any circuit court.
Nothing in this section shall deprive a circuit court of the authority to refer any such case to a commissioner for a hearing or shall deprive the juvenile and domestic relations district courts of the jurisdiction to enforce its valid orders prior to the entry of a conflicting order of any circuit court for any period during which the order was in effect or to temporarily place a child in the custody of any person when that child has been adjudicated abused, neglected, in need of services or delinquent subsequent to the order of any circuit court.
The entry of an order or decree of support for a spouse or for support and maintenance of a child under the provisions of this chapter or §§ 20-107.1 through 20-109 shall constitute a final judgment for any sum or sums in arrears.
In suits for divorce, annulment and separate maintenance, and in proceedings arising under subdivision A 3 or subsection L of § 16.1-241, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may, at any time pending a suit pursuant to this chapter, in the discretion of such court, make any order that may be proper (i) to compel a spouse to pay any sums necessary for the maintenance and support of the petitioning spouse, including (a) an order that the other spouse provide health care coverage for the petitioning spouse, unless it is shown that such coverage cannot be obtained, or (b) an order that a party pay secured or unsecured debts incurred jointly or by either party, (ii) to enable such spouse to carry on the suit, (iii) to prevent either spouse from imposing any restraint on the personal liberty of the other spouse, (iv) to provide for the custody and maintenance of the minor children of the parties, including an order that either party or both parties provide health care coverage or cash medical support, or both, for the children, (v) to provide support, calculated in accordance with § 20-108.2, for any child of the parties to whom a duty of support is owed and to pay or continue to pay support for any child over thehethe age of 18 who meets the requirements set forth in subsection C of § 20-124.2, (vi) for the exclusive use of 5 and possession of the family residence during the pendency of the suit, (vii) to preserve the estate of either spouse, so that it be forthcoming to meet any decree which may be made in the suit, (viii) to of 5 compel either spouse to give security to abide such decree, or (ix) (a) to compel a party to maintain any existing policy owned by that party insuring the life of either party or to require a party to name as a beneficiary of the policy the other party or an appropriate person for the exclusive use and benefit of the minor children of the parties and (b) to allocate the premium cost of such life insurance between the parties, provided that all premiums are billed to the policyholder.
If the order is later of 5 dissolved or modified, a copy of the dissolution or modification shall also be certified, forwarded and entered in the system as described above.
E E.
TReThe court of 5 may deviate from the presumptive amount as provided in subsection H.
awardF. of child support, the court shall first make a determination of the amount of the award of and an pendente lite spousal support, if any, owed by one party to the other under this section.
LIf G.the court is determining both an award of pendente lite spousal support and maintenance and an award of child support, the court shall first make a determination of the amount of the award of pendente lite spousal support, if any, owed by one party to the other under this section.
G.
If the parties Eavehave no minor children in common, the presumptive amount of the award shall be the difference between 27 percent of the payor spouse's monthly gross income and 50 percent of the payee spouse's monthly gross income.
relevantH. evidence relating to the parties' current financial circumstances or the impact of any tax exemption and any credits resulting from such exemptions that indicates the presumptive amount is inappropriate.
The court may deviate from the presumptive amount for good cause shown, including any relevant evidence relating to the parties' current financial circumstances or the impact of any tax exemption and any credits resulting from such exemptions that indicates the presumptive amount is inappropriate.
The presumptive formula set forth in this section shall only apply to cases where the parSies'parties' combined monthly gross income does not exceed $10,000.
3 J.
An order entered pursuant to this section shall have no presumptive effect and shall not 8ebe determinative when adjudicating the underlying cause.
R § 20-108.1.
The court's decision shall be renB.rendered based upon the evidence relevant to each individual case.
B.
Liability for support shall be determined retroactively for the period measured from the date that the proceeding was commenced by the filing of an action with any court provided the complainant exercised due diligence in the service of the respondent or, if earlier, the date supportan wasorder delivered to the sheriff or process server for service on the obligor.irecting payment of In any case in which the jurisdictionDepartment of theSocial juvenileServices andentered domestic relations district court has been divested pursuant to §Title 16.1-24463.2 and nodirecting finalpayment childof support orderwas hasdelivered been entered, any award for child support in the circuit court shall be retroactive to the datesheriff onor whichprocess theserver proceedingfor was commenced by the filing of the action in the juvenile and domestic relations district court, provided that the petitioner exercised due diligence in the service ofon the respondent.obligor.
In any case in which the jurisdiction of the juvenile and domestic relations district court has been divested pursuant to § 16.1-244 and no final child support order has been entered, any award for child support in the circuit court shall be retroactive to the date on which the proceeding was commenced by the filing of the action in the juvenile and domestic relations district court, provided that the petitioner exercised due diligence in the service of the respondent.
The finding that rebuts the guidelines shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines, shall give a justification of why the order varies from the guidelines, and shall be determined by relevant evidence pertaining to the following factorssfactors affecting the obligation, the ability of each party to provide child support, and the best interests of the child:
(ii) any consideration of imputed income based on a change in a party's employment shall be evaluated with consideration of the good faith and reasonableness of employment decisions made by the party, including to attend and complete an educational or vocational program likely to maintain or increase the party's earning potential;
and (iii) a party's current incarceration, as defined in § 8.01-195.10, for 180 or more consecutive days shall not be of 5 deemed voluntary unemployment or voluntary underemployment.
Direct payments ordered by the court for maintaining life insurance coverage pursuant to of 5 subsection D, education expenses, or other court-ordered direct payments for the benefit of the child;
There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the award which would result from the application of 5 of the guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded.
In order to rebut the presumption, the Department shall make written findings in its order that the application of thEthe guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case as determined by relevant evidence pertaining to support for other children in the household or other children for whom any administrative or court order exists, or relevant evidence pertaining to imputed income to a person who is voluntarily unemployed or who fails to provide verification of income upon request of the Department;, providedrilyprovided that income may not be imputed to the custodial parent because (i) a child is not regularly attOndingattending school, (ii) child care services are not available, or (iii) the cost of such child care services are not added to the basic child support obligation.
In addition, a party's current incarceration, as defined in § 8.01-195.10, for 180 or more consecutive days shall not be deemed voluntary unemployment or voluntary underemployment.
Additional factors that may lead to rebuttal of the presumption shall be of 5 determined by Department regulation.
E 2.
Show all 43 changed lines (3 more)
That the provisions of this act amending subdivision B 3 of § 20-108.1 and § 63.2-1918 of the Code of Virginia shall apply only to petitions for child support and petitions for modifications of child support orders commenced on or after July 1, 2022, and that the provisions of this act shall not be construed to create a material change in circumstances for the purposes of modifying anhallan existing child support order if a parent was incarcerated prior to July 1, 2022, and the incarcerated party cannot establish a material change in circumstances other than incarceration.
Department of Health and Human Services determines in writing that the second enactment of this act is not in compliance with 45 C.F.R.
Part 300, the second enactment of this act shall immediately be vacated on such date,date thSand the Virginia Division of Child Support Enforcement shall certify the same, notify the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and House Committee for Courts of Justice, and prominently 8 publish notice of the same on its website for 180 days.
Show all 43 changed rows (3 more)
View plain text versions (4)
- CHAP0527 View text Current pdf April 11, 2022
- SB348ER View text pdf March 21, 2022
- Engrossed Printed as engrossed 22101341D-E pdf February 14, 2022
- Prefiled Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/22 22101341D pdf January 11, 2022
Action History
-
Approved by Governor-Chapter 527 (effective 7/1/22)
-
Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 11, 2022
-
Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on March 22, 2022
-
Signed by Speaker
-
Signed by President
-
Impact statement from DPB (SB348ER)
-
Enrolled
-
Conference report agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N)
-
VOTE: Adoption (73-Y 19-N)
-
Conference report agreed to by House (73-Y 19-N)
-
Amended by conference committee
-
Conferees appointed by House
-
Conferees appointed by Senate
-
Senate acceded to request (40-Y 0-N)
-
House requested conference committee
-
House insisted on amendments
-
House amendments rejected by Senate (0-Y 39-N)
-
VOTE: Passage (74-Y 24-N)
-
Passed House with amendments (74-Y 24-N)
-
Engrossed by House as amended
-
Committee amendments agreed to
-
Read third time
-
Read second time
-
Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment(s) (13-Y 7-N)
-
Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendments (5-Y 3-N)
-
House subcommittee amendments and substitutes offered
-
Assigned Courts sub: Subcommittee #2
-
Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
-
Read first time
-
Placed on Calendar
-
Read third time and passed Senate (37-Y 3-N)
-
Impact statement from DPB (SB348E)
-
Printed as engrossed 22101341D-E
-
Engrossed by Senate as amended SB348E
-
Committee amendment agreed to
-
Reading of amendment waived
-
Read second time
-
Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
-
Reported from Finance and Appropriations (15-Y 0-N)
-
Rereferred to Finance and Appropriations
-
Reported from Judiciary with amendment (11-Y 3-N 1-A)
-
Impact statement from DPB (SB348)
-
Referred to Committee on the Judiciary
-
Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/22 22101341D
Sponsors
- Scott A. Surovell · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 147 not signed on · 60 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Scott A. Surovell Voted No
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (147)
147 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 147 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 73 | 18 | 0 | 8 |
| Total | 73 | 18 | 0 | 8 |
| % of votes cast | 74% | 18% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (99)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 0 | 39 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 0 | 39 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 0% | 98% | 0% | 3% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 74 | 23 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 74 | 23 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 75% | 23% | 0% | 2% |
How each member voted (99)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 13 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 13 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 65% | 35% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (20)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Adams, Les R. | — | Nay |
| Bell, Robert B. | — | Nay |
| Bourne, Jeffrey M. | — | Yea |
| Campbell, Jeffrey L. | — | Nay |
| Campbell, Ronnie R. | — | Nay |
| Charniele L. Herring | — | Yea |
| Don Scott | — | Yea |
| Freitas, Nicholas J. | — | Nay |
| James A. "Jay" Leftwich | — | Nay |
| Jason S. Ballard | — | Yea |
| Jessica L. Anderson | — | Yea |
| Karrie K. Delaney | — | Yea |
| Keam, Mark L. | — | Yea |
| Marcus B. Simon | — | Yea |
| Patrick A. Hope | — | Yea |
| Ransone, Margaret B. | — | Nay |
| Richard C. "Rip" Sullivan, Jr. | — | Yea |
| Terry G. Kilgore | — | Yea |
| Vivian E. Watts | — | Yea |
| Wren M. Williams | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 56% | 33% | 0% | 11% |
How each member voted (9)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bell, Robert B. | — | Not Voting |
| Bourne, Jeffrey M. | — | Yea |
| Campbell, Jeffrey L. | — | Nay |
| James A. "Jay" Leftwich | — | Nay |
| Jason S. Ballard | — | Yea |
| Jessica L. Anderson | — | Nay |
| Marcus B. Simon | — | Yea |
| Patrick A. Hope | — | Yea |
| Terry G. Kilgore | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 37 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 37 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 93% | 8% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| McClellan, Jennifer L. | — | Yea |
| Barker, George L. | — | Yea |
| David W. Marsden | — | Yea |
| Ebbin, Adam P. | — | Yea |
| Edwards, John S. | — | Yea |
| Hanger, Emmett W., Jr. | — | Yea |
| Howell, Janet D. | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Mamie E. Locke | — | Yea |
| Newman, Stephen D. | — | Yea |
| Petersen, J. Chapman | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Yea |
| Ruff, Frank M., Jr. | — | Yea |
| Saslaw, Richard L. | — | Yea |
| Vogel, Jill Holtzman | — | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 11 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 11 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 73% | 20% | 0% | 7% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| McClellan, Jennifer L. | — | Yea |
| Morrissey, Joseph D. | — | Not Voting |
| Edwards, John S. | — | Yea |
| Jennifer B. Boysko | — | Yea |
| L. Louise Lucas | — | Yea |
| Mark D. Obenshain | — | Nay |
| Mark J. Peake | — | Yea |
| Norment, Thomas K., Jr. | — | Nay |
| Petersen, J. Chapman | — | Yea |
| R. Creigh Deeds | — | Yea |
| Richard H. Stuart | — | Yea |
| Ryan T. McDougle | — | Nay |
| Saslaw, Richard L. | — | Yea |
| Scott A. Surovell | — | Yea |
| William M. Stanley, Jr. | — | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 348 do?
- Support orders; retroactivity; arrearages; party's incarceration. Makes various changes to provisions of law related to child and spousal support orders, including (i) providing that in cases in which jurisdiction over child support or spousal support has been divested from the juvenile and domestic relations district court and no final support order has been entered, any award for child support or spousal support in the circuit court shall be retroactive to the date on which the proceeding was commenced by the filing of the action in the juvenile and domestic relations district court and (ii) specifying that prejudgment interest on child support should be retroactive to the date of filing.The bill provides that a party's incarceration for 180 or more consecutive days shall not be deemed voluntary unemployment or underemployment for the purposes of calculating child support and imputing income for such calculation. The bill further provides that a party's incarceration for 180 or more days shall be a material change of circumstances upon which a modification of a child support order may be based. The provisions of the bill related to imputation of income apply only to petitions for child support and petitions for a modification of a child support order commenced on or after July 1, 2022, and do not create a material change in circumstances for the purposes of modifying a child support order if a parent was incarcerated prior to July 1, 2022, and the incarcerated party cannot establish a material change in circumstances other than incarceration.
- Who sponsors SB 348?
- SB 348 is sponsored by Scott A. Surovell.
- What is the current status of SB 348?
- This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 11, 2022. Enacted.
- Where can I track SB 348?
- Track SB 348 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 348
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of SB 348
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →