Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Post Adoption Standing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel reports bill allowing narrow custody petitions by parents whose rights were terminated
Summary
The subcommittee reported House Bill 1854, which would permit certain parents whose parental rights were previously terminated to petition for custody under a narrow set of conditions, after debate and stakeholder concerns about access and enforceability of post-adoption agreements.
House Bill 1854, carried by Delegate Doug Arnold, was reported out of the Civil Subcommittee by a recorded vote of 7-0 after consideration of a committee substitute.
Arnold told the panel the bill “give[s] standing to certain individuals whose rights have been terminated” by amending the statutory definition of a “person with a legitimate interest.” Under the bill, a biological parent whose rights were terminated could petition a juvenile or other court to seek custody if a tightly prescribed set of conditions is met: the child is at least 14, the child previously had a permanency goal of adoption, each adoptive parent is deceased or permanently relieved of custody, the biological parent complied with a post-adoption contact agreement and maintained a continuous positive relationship with the child since termination.
The patron said the measure does not guarantee placement with a biological parent; it would simply permit a parent, currently treated as a legal stranger, to get before a court if they can demonstrate the criteria. The bill envisions representation for the child (guardian ad litem) and involvement of the Department of Social Services and counsel for foster care agencies where applicable.
Valerie LaVue of the Virginia Poverty Law Center testified in support but urged caution. “Many parents . . . do not have control” over whether adoptive families honor post-adoption contact agreements, she said, warning that a rigid requirement that a biological parent have maintained contact could exclude parents who could not compel adoptive families to comply.
Arnold told the committee the bill grew from a specific case: a child adopted at age 2 whose adoptive parents later died when the child was 16; the biological mother had complied with a post-adoption agreement and later sought to reassert a parental role when no caregiver remained. Committee members debated whether the “positive, continuous relationship” requirement could unfairly bar some parents; the patron and others said the standard was intended to limit petitions to parents who had shown sustained effort to maintain ties.
The subcommittee adopted a committee substitute and moved the bill to the next stage by roll call (7-0). The bill now advances for further consideration.
