THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, February 29, 1996 TAG: 9602290288
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1996
SOURCE: BY MARGARET EDDS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium: 97 lines
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 impacting thousands of divorced parents, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee opted 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 on a 96-0 vote, 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 another, 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 various fathers' rights groups, counter that legal and financial policies encouraging shared responsibility are in the best interests of children. Current laws are often 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 L. Ewing, who argued that easing the requirements for non-custodial 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 Virginia 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 S. Moore Jr., 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 mid-week school day on which a noncustodial parent kept a child overnight and then deposited her at 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,'' said Steinberg, 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 spent 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 F. Almand, seemed surprised at the controversy.
He did not object to the year-long study.
The second bill, which would instruct judges to presume that joint custody is the optimum arrangement unless there is contrary evidence, is expected to be considered this weekend by the House Courts of Justice committee.
Introduced by Sen. Mark L. Earley, R-Chesapeake, and passed by the Senate on a 21-19 vote, the bill will first be reviewed by a special subcommittee headed by House Majority Leader C. Richard Cranwell, D-Roanoke County.
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 was 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 chose it and are committed to making it work,'' said Emily McCoy, legislative task force chairman 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 custody bills had moved through the legislature. ``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 input,'' she said.
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY CHILD CUSTODY by CNB