West Virginia 2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 51 — Relating to domestic relations

Last action — Chapter 65, Acts, Regular Session, 2018

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed House of Delegates
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2018. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 2 sponsors

    1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 3 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.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

104 added · 93 removed

Plain-language change summary

The amendment to Bill SB 51 makes several significant changes to how spousal support and domestic relations are handled in West Virginia. Notably, it removes the requirement for a court to create a guideline worksheet for calculating alimony payments, which could lead to more flexibility in how courts determine support amounts. Additionally, the bill clarifies that courts can consider the preferences of children aged 14 and older when deciding parenting arrangements, emphasizing the importance of children's voices in these matters. These changes aim to simplify legal processes and prioritize the well-being of families during separation or divorce.

→
Previous
Latest
NEWS RELEASES HELPFUL LINKS Enrolled Version - Final Version « Senate Bill 51 History OTHER VERSIONS  —  Committee Substitute (1)  |  Introduced Version  |   |  Email Key:
NEWS RELEASES HELPFUL LINKS SB51 SUB1 « Senate Bill 51 History OTHER VERSIONS  —  Enrolled Version - Final Version  |  Introduced Version  |   |  Email Key:
Red = new code to be enacted WEST virginia legislature regular session ENROLLED Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 51 Senators Gaunch and Cline, original sponsors [Passed March 10, 2018;
Red = new code to be enacted WEST virginia legislature regular session Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 51 By Senators Gaunch and Cline [Originating in the Committee on the Judiciary;
in effect 90 days from passage]     A Bill to amend and reenact §48-6-301 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended;
reported on January 24, 2018]     A BILL to amend and reenact §48-6-301 of the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended;
and allowing court to consider allocation of custodial responsibility arising from temporary agreements in certain circumstances.
and eliminating language prohibiting court from considering divisions of functions arising from temporary arrangements after separation in determining proportion of caretaking functions each person previously performed for child.
Factors considered in awarding spousal support and separate maintenance.
Factors considered in awarding spousal support, child support or and separate maintenance.
(b) The court shall consider the following factors in determining the amount and duration of spousal support and separate maintenance, if any, to be ordered under the provisions of parts V and VI, §48-5-1 et seq.
(b) The court shall consider the following factors in determining the amount and duration of spousal support child support or and separate maintenance, if any, to be ordered under the provisions of parts V and VI, §48-5-1 et seq.
of this code, insofar as the distribution affects or will affect the earnings of the parties and their ability to pay or their need to receive spousal support and separate maintenance:
of this code, insofar as the distribution affects or will affect the earnings of the parties and their ability to pay or their need to receive spousal support child support or and separate maintenance:
(10) The likelihood that the party seeking spousal support and separate maintenance can substantially increase his or her income-earning abilities within a reasonable time by acquiring additional education or training;
(10) The likelihood that the party seeking spousal support child support or and separate maintenance can substantially increase his or her income-earning abilities within a reasonable time by acquiring additional education or training;
(16) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be the custodian of a minor child or children, to seek employment outside the home;
(16) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because said that party will be the custodian of a minor child or children, to seek employment outside the home;
and (20) Any other factors as the court determines necessary or appropriate to consider in order to arrive at a fair and equitable grant of spousal support and separate maintenance.
and (20) Such Any other factors as the court deems determines necessary or appropriate to consider in order to arrive at a fair and equitable grant of spousal support, child support or and separate maintenance.
(4) A description of the work and child-care schedules of any person seeking an allocation of custodial responsibility and any expected changes to these schedules in the near future;
during the twenty-four months preceding the filing of an action under this article (4) A description of the work and child-care schedules of any person seeking an allocation of custodial responsibility and any expected changes to these schedules in the near future;
or (B) A formula or method for determining a schedule in sufficient detail that, if necessary, the schedule can be enforced in subsequent proceedings by the court;
or (B) A formula or method for determining such a schedule in sufficient detail that, if necessary, the schedule can be enforced in subsequent proceedings by the court;
(a) Unless otherwise resolved by agreement of the parents under §48-9-201 of this code or unless harmful to the child, the court shall allocate custodial responsibility so that, except to the extent required under §48-9-209 of this code, the custodial time the child spends with each parent may be expected to achieve any of the following objectives:
(a) Unless otherwise resolved by agreement of the parents under §48-9-201 of this code or unless manifestly harmful to the child, the court shall allocate custodial responsibility so that, except to the extent required under §48-9-209 of this code, the proportion of custodial time the child spends with each parent approximates the proportion of time each parent spent performing caretaking functions for the child prior to the parents’ separation or, if the parents never lived together, before the filing of the action, except to the extent required under section 9-209 may be expected or necessary to achieve any of the following objectives:
(1) To permit the child to have a meaningful relationship with each parent who has performed a reasonable share of parenting functions;
(1) To permit the child to have a relationship with each parent who has performed a reasonable share of parenting functions;
(2) To accommodate, if the court determines it is in the best interests of the child, the firm and reasonable preferences of a child who is 14 years of age or older, and with regard to a child under 14 years of age, but sufficiently matured that he or she can intelligently express a voluntary preference for one parent, to give that preference the weight warranted by the circumstances;
(2) To accommodate, if the court determines it is in the best interests of the child, the firm and reasonable preferences of a child who is 14 years of age or older, and with regard to a child under 14 years of age, but sufficiently matured that he or she can intelligently express a voluntary preference for one parent, to give that preference such the weight as warranted by the circumstances warrant;
(8) To consider the stage of a child’s development;
and (8) To consider the stage of a child’s development;
 (b) The court may consider the allocation of custodial responsibility arising from temporary agreements made by the parties after separation if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such agreements were consensual.  The court shall afford those temporary consensual agreements the weight the court believes the agreements are entitled to receive, based upon the evidence.  The court may not consider the temporary allocation of custodial responsibility imposed by a court order on the parties.
(b) In determining the proportion of caretaking functions each parent previously performed for the child under subsection (a) of this section, the court shall not consider the divisions of functions arising from temporary arrangements after separation, whether those arrangements are consensual or by court order.
(c) If the court is unable to allocate custodial responsibility under §48-9-206(a) of this code because the allocation under §48-9-206(a) of this code would be harmful to the child, or because there is no history of past performance of caretaking functions, as in the case of a newborn, or because the history does not establish a pattern of caretaking sufficiently dispositive of the issues of the case, the court shall allocate custodial responsibility based on the child’s best interest, taking into account the factors in considerations that are set forth in this section and in §48-9-209 and §48-9-403(d) of this code and preserving to the extent possible this section’s priority on the share of past caretaking functions each parent performed.
The court may take into account information relating to the temporary arrangements in determining other issues under this section (c) (b) If the court is unable to allocate custodial responsibility under §48-9-206(a) of this code because the allocation under said §48-9-206(a) of this code would be manifestly harmful to the child, or because there is no history of past performance of caretaking functions, as in the case of a newborn, or because the history does not establish a pattern of caretaking sufficiently dispositive of the issues of the case, the court shall allocate custodial responsibility based on the child’s best interest, taking into account the factors in considerations that are set forth in this section and in §48-9-209 and §48-9-403(d) of this code and preserving to the extent possible this section’s priority on the share of past caretaking functions each parent performed.
(d) In determining how to schedule the custodial time allocated to each parent, the court shall take account of the economic, physical, and other practical circumstances such as those listed in §48-9-206(a)(6) of this code.
(d) (c) In determining how to schedule the custodial time allocated to each parent, the court shall take account of the economic, physical, and other practical circumstances such as those listed in §48-9-206(a)(6) of this code.
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (3)

Action History

  1. Chapter 65, Acts, Regular Session, 2018

  2. Approved by Governor 3/22/18

  3. To Governor 3/21/18

  4. Approved by Governor 3/22/18 - House Journal

  5. Approved by Governor 3/22/18 - Senate Journal

  6. To Governor 3/21/18 - Senate Journal

  7. To Governor 3/21/18 - House Journal

  8. House Message received

  9. Completed legislative action

  10. Communicated to Senate

  11. House adopted conference report and passed bill (Roll No. 533)

  12. Conference report received-House

  13. House received Senate message

  14. Senate requests House to concur

  15. Senate adopted conference report and passed bill (Roll No. 488)

  16. Conference report filed - Senate

  17. Conference report filed - House

  18. House received Senate message

  19. To conference

  20. Communicated to House

  21. Senate agreed to conference and appoints conferees: Trump, Smith, Woelfel

  22. House Message received

  23. Communicated to Senate

  24. House appointed conferees: Foster, Harshbarger, Isner

  25. House refused to recede and requested conference(Voice vote)

  26. House received Senate message

  27. Senate refused to concur; requested House recede(Voice vote)

  28. House Message received

  29. Communicated to Senate

  30. Title amendment adopted (Voice vote)

  31. Passed House (Roll No. 364)

  32. Read 3rd time

  33. On 3rd reading, Special Calendar

  34. Amendment rejected (Voice vote)

  35. Committee amendment adopted (Voice vote)

  36. Read 2nd time

  37. On 2nd reading, Special Calendar

  38. Read 1st time

  39. On 1st reading, Special Calendar

  40. With amendment, do pass

  41. To House Judiciary

  42. To Judiciary

  43. Introduced in House

  44. Ordered to House

  45. Passed Senate (Roll No. 27)

  46. Read 3rd time

  47. On 3rd reading

  48. Read 2nd time

  49. On 2nd reading

  50. Read 1st time

  51. On 1st reading

  52. Committee substitute reported

  53. To Judiciary

  54. Introduced in Senate

  55. To Judiciary

  56. Filed for introduction

Sponsors

  • Gaunch · Primary
  • Cline · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 150 not signed on · 4 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Gaunch

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Cline

Not signed on (150)

150 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 150 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

PASSAGE

Passed 84 Yea · 13 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democrat 1300
Unaffiliated 571002
Republican 26000
Total 841302
% of votes cast 85%13%0%2%
How each member voted (99)
Member Party Vote
Thompson — Nay
Evans, A. — Yea
Evans, E. — Yea
Lane — Yea
Romine, C. — Yea
Blair — Yea
Foster — Yea
Romine, R. — Yea
Martin — Yea
Maynard — Yea
Atkinson — Yea
Bates — Nay
Boggs — Yea
Byrd — Yea
Capito — Yea
Fast — Yea
Ferro — Yea
Folk — Yea
Frich — Yea
Hamrick — Yea
Hicks — Nay
Kessinger — Yea
Love — Yea
Lovejoy — Yea
Marcum — Yea
Pyles — Nay
Rodighiero — Yea
Rowan — Yea
Shott — Yea
Sponaugle — Nay
Storch — Yea
Sypolt — Yea
Hartman — Yea
Nelson — Yea
Diserio — Yea
Phillips — Yea
Speaker Armstead — Yea
Cowles — Yea
Espinosa — Yea
Higginbotham — Yea
Hollen — Yea
Isner — Yea
Overington — Yea
Pack — Yea
Pethtel — Yea
Summers — Yea
Upson — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Westfall — Yea
Ambler — Yea
Brewer — Yea
Canestraro — Nay
Caputo — Yea
Deem — Not Voting
Fleischauer — Nay
Graves — Yea
Harshbarger — Yea
Hill — Yea
Householder — Not Voting
Iaquinta — Yea
Longstreth — Yea
Lynch — Yea
Miley — Nay
Moye — Nay
Paynter — Yea
Robinson — Yea
Rowe — Nay
Sobonya — Yea
Wilson — Yea
John Williams Democrat Nay
Mike Pushkin Democrat Nay
Sean Hornbuckle Democrat Yea
Shawn Fluharty Democrat Nay
Ben Queen Republican Yea
Betsy Kelly Republican Yea
Bill Hamilton Republican Yea
D. Rolland Jennings Republican Yea
Erica Moore Republican Yea
Gary G. Howell Republican Yea
George Miller Republican Yea
George Miller Republican Yea
Guy Ward Republican Yea
Jason Barrett Republican Yea
Jeff Campbell Republican Yea
Jeff Eldridge Republican Yea
Jim Butler Republican Yea
Joe Ellington Republican Yea
Joe Statler Republican Yea
Lisa White Republican Yea
Mark Dean Republican Yea
Mark Zatezalo Republican Yea
Marty Gearheart Republican Yea
Matthew Rohrbach Republican Yea
Pat McGeehan Republican Yea
Roger Hanshaw Republican Yea
Roy Cooper Republican Yea
Stanley Adkins Republican Yea
Vernon Criss Republican Yea
William Anderson Republican Yea

Official roll call →

PASSAGE

Passed 81 Yea · 16 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 541303
Democrat 2200
Republican 25100
Total 811603
% of votes cast 81%16%0%3%
How each member voted (100)
Member Party Vote
Hartman — Nay
Thompson — Nay
Romine, C. — Not Voting
Evans, A. — Yea
Evans, E. — Yea
Romine, R. — Yea
Lane — Yea
Atkinson — Yea
Bates — Nay
Canestraro — Nay
Deem — Not Voting
Fast — Yea
Ferro — Yea
Hicks — Nay
Kessinger — Yea
Love — Nay
Marcum — Nay
Miley — Nay
Pyles — Nay
Rodighiero — Nay
Rowan — Yea
Rowe — Nay
Sponaugle — Nay
Storch — Not Voting
Blair — Yea
Foster — Yea
Martin — Yea
Maynard — Yea
Sypolt — Yea
Walters — Yea
Nelson — Yea
Diserio — Yea
Speaker Armstead — Yea
Phillips — Yea
Boggs — Yea
Byrd — Yea
Capito — Yea
Caputo — Yea
Cowles — Yea
Espinosa — Yea
Folk — Yea
Frich — Yea
Graves — Yea
Hamrick — Yea
Harshbarger — Yea
Higginbotham — Yea
Hollen — Yea
Iaquinta — Yea
Isner — Yea
Lovejoy — Yea
Lynch — Yea
Overington — Yea
Pack — Yea
Paynter — Yea
Shott — Yea
Summers — Yea
Upson — Yea
Westfall — Yea
Ambler — Yea
Brewer — Yea
Fleischauer — Nay
Hill — Yea
Householder — Yea
Longstreth — Yea
Moye — Yea
Pethtel — Yea
Robinson — Yea
Sobonya — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wilson — Yea
John Williams Democrat Nay
Mike Pushkin Democrat Nay
Sean Hornbuckle Democrat Yea
Shawn Fluharty Democrat Yea
Ben Queen Republican Yea
Betsy Kelly Republican Yea
Bill Hamilton Republican Nay
D. Rolland Jennings Republican Yea
Erica Moore Republican Yea
Gary G. Howell Republican Yea
George Miller Republican Yea
George Miller Republican Yea
Guy Ward Republican Yea
Jason Barrett Republican Yea
Jeff Campbell Republican Yea
Jeff Eldridge Republican Yea
Jim Butler Republican Yea
Joe Ellington Republican Yea
Joe Statler Republican Yea
Lisa White Republican Yea
Mark Dean Republican Yea
Mark Zatezalo Republican Yea
Marty Gearheart Republican Yea
Matthew Rohrbach Republican Yea
Pat McGeehan Republican Yea
Roger Hanshaw Republican Yea
Roy Cooper Republican Yea
Stanley Adkins Republican Yea
Vernon Criss Republican Yea
William Anderson Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passage

Passed 33 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 30001
Republican 3000
Total 33001
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (34)
Member Party Vote
ARVON — Yea
GAUNCH — Yea
RUCKER — Yea
JEFFRIES — Yea
SMITH — Yea
BALDWIN — Yea
KARNES — Yea
STOLLINGS — Yea
BEACH — Not Voting
MANN — Yea
SWOPE — Yea
BLAIR — Yea
MARONEY — Yea
SYPOLT — Yea
BOLEY — Yea
MAYNARD — Yea
TAKUBO — Yea
BOSO — Yea
OJEDA — Yea
TRUMP — Yea
PALUMBO — Yea
UNGER — Yea
CLINE — Yea
PLYMALE — Yea
WELD — Yea
PREZIOSO — Yea
WOELFEL — Yea
FACEMIRE — Yea
ROMANO — Yea
MR PRESIDENT — Yea
FERNS — Yea
Charles H. Clements Republican Yea
Mike Azinger Republican Yea
Sarah Drennan Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors SB 51?
SB 51 is sponsored by Gaunch and Cline.
What is the current status of SB 51?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 10, 2018. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 51?
Track SB 51 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 51

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 51

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →