ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, February 29, 1996 TAG: 9602290076
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: RICHMOND
SOURCE: MARGARET EDDS STAFF WRITER
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY has shelved one proposed change in how divorced couples manage custody of their children. Another comes up for debate this week.
When it comes to child support payments, a day remains a day - at least for the next year, a state Senate committee decided Wednesday.
In a decision affecting thousands of divorced parents, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee opted Wednesday to study for a year a proposal to make a child's overnight visit count as a full day in figuring custody payments.
The proposal, which earlier breezed through the House 96-0, was one of two bills targeted in the past week by groups including the National Organization for Women and the Virginia Poverty Law Center.
That bill and the other, which establishes a ``rebuttable presumption'' that joint legal and physical custody is in the best interest of a child, would dramatically shift family law in ways that could hurt children and women, the opponents argue.
Supporters of the measures, including fathers'-rights groups, counter that legal and financial policies encouraging shared responsibility are in the best interests of children. Current laws often are unfair to men, they said.
The committee action produced jubilation among opponents, including a Franklin woman who was the subject of a recent Virginia Court of Appeals decision defining a day as a 24-hour period for purposes of child support.
``I'm thrilled,'' said Patricia Ewing, who argued that easing the requirements for noncustodial parents to reduce their child-support payments would hurt children and custodial parents, usually women.
``My financial situation doesn't improve because she spends a night a week and every other weekend with her father. My mortgage doesn't change; my electric bill doesn't change.''
Under state law, a noncustodial parent who spends 110 days or more each year with a child is allowed a break in child-support payments. The House bill, introduced by Del. William Moore, D-Portsmouth, would have allowed an overnight visit to be counted as a full day.
``With the rule of the Court of Appeals, it's virtually impossible for a parent to reach the 110 days,'' argued Murray Steinberg, a fathers'-rights advocate and president of the Family Resolution Council. The decision means that a midweek school day on which a noncustodial parent kept a child overnight and then took her to school could not count against the 110 days, he noted.
Opponents of the bill said judges could opt to count that period as a half-day.
``One more year will go by where fathers get screwed,'' Steinberg said after the committee vote to carry the bill over until the 1997 session. ``Is it mother's support or child support? Shouldn't it flow with the child?''
Critics of the bill countered that, with the proposed change, noncustodial parents could easily pass the 110-day threshold with typical visitation rights - alternate weekends, one night a week, holidays and vacations.
Legislators who established the financial break for shared custody envisioned that the noncustodial parent would be making a fuller commitment than normal visitation, they said.
Steinberg countered that the 110-day limit should be reduced, not made harder to attain. Fathers who spend that much time with their children have expenses that should be recognized, he said.
Moore, who introduced the bill at the request of House Courts Chairman James Almand, D-Arlington, seemed surprised at the controversy. He did not object to the yearlong study.
The second bill, which would instruct judges to presume that joint custody is the best arrangement unless there is contrary evidence, is expected to be considered this weekend by the House Courts of Justice committee.
Introduced by Sen. Mark Earley, R-Chesapeake, and passed by the Senate 21-19, the bill first will be reviewed by a special subcommittee headed by House Majority Leader Richard Cranwell, D-Vinton.
Earley said he supports a presumption that joint custody is best because he believes it will reduce the number of court custody battles.
Such a law ``would assist in settling it outside of court,'' he said. Also, ``It is a benefit for the child clearly to have more access to both parents.''
Earley said judges would be free to bypass joint custody if evidence were submitted that it would not work. For example, that might occur when the parents live far apart or when there is testimony that such an arrangement would not be in the best interests of a child.
Opponents said joint custody is optimal if both parents voluntarily pursue that course, but should not be forced by the courts.
``It is wonderful when the parents choose it and are committed to making it work,'' said Emily McCoy, legislative task force chairwoman for the Virginia chapter of NOW. ``When it's mandated, the child is the victim because there's continuing controversy.''
Several state experts on family law said they were surprised by the speed and relative quiet with which the bills had advanced.
``We haven't had time to react,'' said Winship Tower, a Norfolk attorney and member of the board of governors of the family law section of the Virginia State Bar.
``Nothing should be done until we've had more imput,'' she said.
LENGTH: Medium: 98 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Chart by staff: Changing child custody laws. KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996 Type first letter of feature OR type help for list of commands FIND S-DB DB OPT SS WRD QUIT QUIT Save options? YES NO GROUP YOU'VE SELECTED: QUIT NO login: cby CNB