Governor Youngkin’s Veto of HB2613: Upholding Child Safety in Custody Decisions

In a decisive move prioritizing child welfare, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed House Bill 2613, a measure that sought to prevent courts and child welfare agencies from considering a parent’s legal use of authorized substances—such as prescribed medications or cannabis—in custody or visitation determinations. The governor’s action underscores a commitment to ensuring that children’s safety remains paramount in family law proceedings.

Understanding HB2613

HB2613, introduced by Delegate Nadarius Clark (D-Suffolk), aimed to prohibit the consideration of a parent’s lawful consumption of substances like medical marijuana or prescribed medications in child custody and visitation cases. The bill also directed the Board of Social Services to amend its regulations to align with this provision.

Governor Youngkin’s Rationale

In his veto statement, Governor Youngkin expressed concerns that the bill could inadvertently expose children to harm. He highlighted the potential risks associated with legal substance use, particularly the increased incidents of children ingesting cannabis-infused products. The governor emphasized that, while the substances in question may be legally authorized for adult use, their presence in environments accessible to children could pose significant safety hazards.

Balancing Parental Rights and Child Safety

While the rights of parents to make lawful personal choices are respected, the overriding concern in custody and visitation matters must be the well-being of the child. Governor Youngkin’s veto reflects a cautious approach, ensuring that courts retain the discretion to consider all factors that may impact a child’s safety and development. By rejecting HB2613, the governor affirms that the legal status of a substance does not negate its potential risks to children in custody arrangements.

Conclusion

Governor Youngkin’s veto of HB2613 reinforces the principle that child safety should not be compromised by legislative measures that may inadvertently limit judicial oversight. In matters as sensitive as child custody and visitation, it is imperative that courts maintain the ability to assess all relevant factors, including the implications of a parent’s substance use, to safeguard the best interests of the child.