Driver's license; suspension for failure to pay child support. (HB1694)

Introduced By

Del. Clay Athey (R-Front Royal)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Driver's license; suspension for failure to pay child support.  Establishes a procedure for revocation of a person's driver's license in cases in which a person who has had his driver's license previously reinstated after entering into an agreement with the Department of Social Services for payment of child support arrears fails to comply with that agreement. This bill also increases the minimum payment that must be made pursuant to an agreement from $500 to $1,000. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Passed


01/10/2011Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11103550D
01/10/2011Referred to Committee on Transportation
01/18/2011Referred from Transportation
01/18/2011Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/21/2011Assigned Courts sub: #2 Civil
01/24/2011Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (8-Y 0-N)
01/31/2011Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/31/2011Committee substitute printed 11104659D-H1
02/02/2011Read first time
02/02/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1694H1)
02/03/2011Read second time
02/03/2011Committee substitute agreed to 11104659D-H1
02/03/2011Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB1694H1
02/04/2011Read third time and passed House (94-Y 4-N)
02/04/2011VOTE: PASSAGE (94-Y 4-N) (see vote tally)
02/07/2011Constitutional reading dispensed
02/07/2011Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/08/2011Assigned Courts sub: Civil
02/14/2011Reported from Courts of Justice (14-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2011Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2011Read third time
02/16/2011Passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2011Reconsideration of Senate passage agreed to by Senate (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2011Passed Senate (39-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/22/2011Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1694ER)
02/22/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1694ER)
02/22/2011Signed by Speaker
02/23/2011Signed by President
03/26/2011Governor's recommendation received by House
04/05/2011Placed on Calendar
04/06/2011House concurred in Governor's recommendation (88-Y 11-N)
04/06/2011VOTE: ADOPTION (88-Y 11-N) (see vote tally)
04/06/2011Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/06/2011G Governor's recommendation adopted
04/06/2011Reenrolled bill text (HB1694ER2)
04/06/2011Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/06/2011Signed by President as reenrolled
04/06/2011Enacted, Chapter 773 (effective 7/1/11)
04/06/2011G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0773)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 2 minutes.


Marsha Maines writes:

Guess Mr. Athey is getting some sort of kickbacks to have drafted such a BIASED, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Socialist bill! "do WHATEVER this Social Worker says, or she will hold your drivers license hostage until she successfully EXTORTS money from you!" The DCSE is a DUPLICATE DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY THAT EXISTS SOLELY TO LAUNDER MONEY FOR THE STATE. They don't give a rats ass about YOUR kids or Mine! Virginia's children are NOT "owed $2.4 billion."
"Virginia's children" would be the WARDS OF THE STATE, which is the 1% of the 11% of the 140,000 cases DCSE is managing.
Of the over 1,000,000 child support orders in Virginia, 90% of those children still Belong To the Mothers and Fathers of Virginia, NOT "the state".
Falsified statements lead to falsified claims of alleged debt
Falsified claims of alleged debt puts more money in the state's bank accounts under false pretenses.
More money in the state's bank accounts under False Pretenses, leads to the destruction of the Public's Trust.
When the Public's Trust is abused due to Criminal activity that goes unpunished, Respect for the law & those administering it, dies.

marshamaines writes:

Looks like We The People have to make a serious decision here: 1)REVOKE MR. ATHEY'S BOND 2)File a Racketeering suit for using his position as a Legislator to put a law in place that PERSONALLY Benefits Himself and other 2 faced Members of the JUDICIAL BRANCH (bar card members) 3) MAKE SURE HE GETS REPLACED @ THIS FALL'S ELECTION. After his bill becomes Law, call a dcse social worker and make the allegation he fathered a child, has never paid any support for it and get His Drivers License switch shut off. NO EVIDENCE OR VERIFICATION OF ALLEGATION IS REQUIRED, DCSE WILL ACT BASED ON MERE POSSESSION OF A SOCIAL SECURITY # (that's how they get their Incentive pay from the Feds under Title IV-D)while Pretending to act "only" in the "child's best interest"

Mike Smith writes:

The deck is now stacked against fathers by a feminist run kangaroo court system in which a father lacks even the basic rights accorded common criminals. I personally know of many fathers whose wives left them and then fought over the children, bringing false charges against fathers to prevent them from seeing their own children, then making it impossible for a father to ever earn a living by getting jackass judges to grant so much child support the dad can't even live, get to work, pay rent or eat.

Brad Howe writes:

This is ludicrous. How do you expect a person who can't keep an agreement for $500 to keep the same agreement for $1000?

This is a two part anti non custodial bill. First and foremost they are raising the bar to reinstate your license under the guise of "we've been misled so many times by broken promises" In effect, they will be reinstating much less licenses than they are now.

The second part is to set the person up for even more certain failure to pay and they can revoke a reinstated license much easier.

So, those that are desperate have to agree to more money then they will be able to pay. This in actuality will allow many more license revocations.

As with all other Child Support guidelines, this will likewise be abused with no accountability, discipline, or oversight.

Next years bill will remove the agreement clause so revocation can occur at whim by the state.

People, we need to say enough is enough. Stop the war on non custodial parents!


Dave Briggman writes:

Brad, I'd like to know you on email address is me up, please.

Dave Briggman writes:

Mike, I'd like to hook up with you on Facebook as well.

marshamaines writes:

so how come nobody seems to know what these "amendments" are? and Mr. Athey's assistant doesn't even know what a "wage witholding order" is or how it works? and how come nobody returns calls or emails DEMANDING ANSWERS? must be amount of money changing hands that the public has no clue about.

stephen writes:

People need to start supporting anyone that runs against this clown in our next election. This man has shown no sign of careing about keeping kids alive from drunk drivers, and he fuels his campaign with tobacco money.

Mike Smith writes:

Check out Dr. Stephen Baskerville's book on fatherhood. I've read it and though it is a bit tedious it tell the tale of what government has done to fathers and fatherhood. Not that some slimy philanderer should get away with impregnating every woman he meets, I have a special place in hell for him, but that the state, by insinuating itself into the whole family thing, forcing me a taxpayer to pay for other people's children without my being repaid by them having to work for me, we are getting robbed in several ways. I know several fathers who have had their wives take off, either leaving them with the children because the woman needed to "be more fulfilled" or whatever, or taking the kids, often filing false charges against him, and making government take most of his pay -- when he cannot ever even see his own children again.

stephen writes:

It's to bad this clown has no concern for the kids being murdered and butchered in his own district by drunk drivers and drug dealers. This guy is a threat to every person in Virginia.

Mike Smith writes:

Huh? I may oppose his bill on this drivers license thing, but drunk drivers and drug dealers? Can you explain this? He has been strong on law enforcement. And as far as I know he has always fought to protect innocent human life in the womb and in the hospital bed. Get your facts right!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

This Stephen guy just shows up a couple of times a week, posts a dozen ten-word comments in which he accuses legislators of bizarre things, and then leaves. It's not worth trying to engage with him.

Mike Smith writes:

Thanks, Waldo:

When people are coming after our rights, any of our rights, of any one or group of us, it is all too easy to react without thinking and in what may turn out to be self-defeating ways. As the noose of Big Government keeps tightening around our necks this becomes all too apparent.

The "cure" for deadbeat dads lies not in even further restrictions as more and more of them, perhaps in the millions, simply drop out of the regulated economy to who knows where?

If it is criminal to bring a new life into the world without intent to care for him it is equally criminal for government to force me to pay for him--without the child becoming my indentured servant until he pays off his "debt" to me. Ridiculous? Try this: I get to put the deadbeat dad to work on my farm or in my factory, keeping him in a cell when he is not working. Silly? Is it any more ridiculous than the system we now have. How about real parents teaching their daughters by example through real love not to get knocked up by low-life, horny little b------s in the first place?

Dave Briggman writes:

Except, Mike, that the stereotypical "deadbeat" dad exists in, perhaps, 5% of cases.

You may not know this, Mike (and Waldo) that paying your child support in advance, in Virginia, is illegal.

Mike Smith writes:

I agree Dave, though I am not sure your percentage is that small.

It makes more apparent the need for my "medieval" approach to society to attack the problem of family breakdown and parent-less kids at its root.

1. Shrink family destroying government: Restore the Constitution, End the Welfare, Education, Healthcare, Regulatory and Police State

2. Taxes will plummet, ending the need for mothers to work outside the home.

3. Fathers will earn enough to be sole breadwinners when mothers don't compete for jobs.

4. Mothers staying home are less tempted to screw around.

5. Outlaw the Pill and abortion again, the contraceptive mindset destroys unity in marriages.

6. Make all sex outside marriage a jailable felony. Extreme? No society has ever survived with sexual anarchy.

6. Encourage home schooling, keeping kids out of trouble and preparing them for Ivy League college.

7.End no-fault divorce when when there are children except for extreme cases of abuse.

8. Tear down the phony wall of separation around churches, forcing Christianity into a ghetto, away from even non-governmental institutions and business. A society that loses Christianity (that make Western Civilization possible!) is lost!

9. End all income and inheritance taxes so families can create intergenerational wealth once again.

10. Instead of a welfare class, restore servant-hood. Poor folks can learn from the better off by serving them. All they learn from each other is how to stay poor. Most of the poor will not stay poor for long. This has been proven true. The welfare state only creates a permanent class of poor.

11. In other words, abolish Liberalism as our "official" religion.

Jack Smith writes:

What you said, Mike, and for most crime require restitution for the victim and bring back the stocks* as the standard punishment for most crime. Then close most of the jails and prisons except where required to house the villains most dangerous to society.

If implemented, the victim is repaid (at least for tangible loss) and the lawbreaker has an opportunity to regain some dignity instead of becoming a hardened criminal in prison. An he can work a job and contribute to his self, family and community instead of being a burden. Not to mention the savings in tax dollars to keep those hell holes open.

Of course, for the public humiliation of being put in the stocks on Saturday morning in the town square to be a deterent, the idea of shame must be restored. But that might hurt someone's feelings and cause loss of "self esteem" (a cousin of political correctness that has helped wreck out country).

*"an instrument of punishment consisting of an adjustable wooden structure with holes for securing a person's feet and hands, in which criminals were locked and exposed to public ridicule or assault." [from the Apple Dictionary]

Mike Smith writes:

Ah, Jack, you're assuming some people are "bad" and, implicitly, some "good." How judgmental!

Brad Howe writes:


The vast majority of Fathers love their children and would do anything to help them. They usually have a healthy loving relationship with their children before any separation. Then, for whatever reason the parents separate.

What happens next is just criminal. The courts order the loving, caring Father not to see his child. The standard of visitation is every other weekend and usually about 3 hours each week. How can anyone be a parent with only 52 nights per year or roughly four nights per month? The statistics show this happens in 85% of the cases. A mere 10% actually get shared custody (not necessarily equal time) with their children, and a mere 5% of Fathers get sole custody.

With these statistics, is it really a mystery why some Fathers don't want to pay child support? I equate this to taxation without representation. Why pay child support when the system has removed your wishes, your hopes, your dreams, your joy, AND your children from your life? Resistance to paying child support is a method of rebellion. Unfortunately the system realizes this. That is why there are such methods to force compliance that would appear to be counter productive. This first and most effective method is wage garnishment. It is now standard practice for the Courts to order wage garnishment from the get go. Other methods include suspension of drivers and professional licenses, jail time, seizure of you bank accounts, interception of your tax returns, etc. All these are meant to remove your child from your life even further. How can you see your children and take them anywhere without a driver license? How can you take them out to dinner for your two days if your bank account has been emptied of your most recent garnished paycheck? How about a year in jail without seeing or touching your children? The message is clear, pay up or you won't see your child at all.

The Child Support Enforcement agencies would have you believe they are acting in the best interest of the child. Is it really in the best interest to remove one loving parent from a child's life? Is it really in the best interest to destroy one parent financially? How can a parent with no home, credit, or car possibly be able to be a role model for a child?

What the system would have you believe is that monetary support is more important than direct moral parental guidance.

If America would adopt shared equal custody there would for the most part, be no need for Child Support Enforcement. Both parents would have a direct active role in their children's lives and support. Equal custody would remove the adversarial arena of Family courts. EVERYONE going though divorce or separation are taught that you must ask for sole custody. Once a parent realizes the ensuing tax free income there is little desire to include the other parent in the children's lives under fear of loosing or reducing that income. In fact, the alternative to reduce visitation is usually the case. The system knows this and that is one reason why the support payments are set so extraordinarily high to keep the one parent satisfied with the arrangement. The other reason is it's more money for the state as I will cover shortly.

Remember Child Support enforcement was created to go after parents that abandoned their children both financially and directly. As with most good intended legislation, it has involved into what the creators never intended, an all consuming destroyer of non custodial parents of who wish nothing more than to be a meaningful part of their children's lives.

Also be aware Child Support Enforcement makes money off of garnishing your wages. They get $2 per paycheck from the non custodial parent, and a $25 fee from the custodial parent each year. I know this doesn't sound like much but keep in mind the hundreds of millions of parents in the system right now. Likewise, upon collecting, the money sits in a bank account for several weeks where it draws interest. Again, not much on an individual basis, but lots of dollars if you factor in all 50 states. The child support enforcement agency gets incentives and bonus's from the Federal Government from 66% up to and over 100% of every dollar they spend collecting child support. Likewise the jails are reimbursed Federal Dollars for housing a parent not paying child support. Some have said the state gets $2 for every $1 they spend housing child support inmates.

Is it any wonder then that the Child Support propaganda machine has us to believe that 85% of Fathers are deadbeats and not fit for raising a child?

Next time you read a deadbeat crackdown story, or see a newscast on deadbeat roundup, look past the propaganda, use some reason, do the math, and think for yourself if this is really in the best interest of the children?

Mike Smith writes:


I couldn't agree with you more. Again, I recommend to those not aware of the hideous, anti-father feminist agenda, read Stephen Baskerville's book, Taken Into Custody, and others as well.

Women, especially those at mostly at fault in a divorce are driven by the "hand in the cookie jar" syndrome to justify their actions by "blaming the man." Lawyers then tell them to "protect themselves" (I guess, in case the man might file unfit parent charges first), by accusing him of abuse, even child molestation against him, effectively destroying his life, let alone his ever having a relationship with his own children.

Even where the man was at fault, her urge for revenge severely damages the children. In 90 percent of cases there is "someone else" involved.

Men and women are different. Women are more likely to destroy the man, when today it is as likely the woman's fault a marriage broke up.

Is it any wonder suicide is so high, even murder-suicide cases?

Solution? Grow up in a normal, loving family with two parents who stay together and don't fight. And marry only women from normal families. Sadly, there are no more normal people in the world---except me, and I am not so sure about me.

Dave Briggman writes:

This bill was passed out of Athey's subcommittee last week, with substitutes which never got before anyone outside of that subcommittee...and was passed out of the full committee yesterday with a substitute...the substitute is not available we probably won't see that until it's been passed into law.

Mike Smith writes:

I just read the text of the bill and it looks like just another way to drive fathers who have given up trying to meet the ever rising expectations of Social Services to simply drop out, leave the state and try to take up elsewhere, except the Federal Government is immediately notified once an employer files a report. Making the minimum payment "and has made at least one payment of $2,500 or five percent of the total delinquency, whichever is greater" the minimum requirement for getting his license back, ensures that most parents will never be able to get their drivers licenses back. Putting the burden on proof on the "obligor" to that he or she was not "willful" in failing to meet payment requirements is a violation of a basic right given to common criminals. With a separate court system, run by feminists, further ensures no justice. It is a stupid piece of legislation, passing out of committee 22 to zip, by both democrats and republicans ensuring its passage by the full House. Once can safely assume, unless the Health and Education committee in the Senate kills it, it will become law. Another reason I, as a faithful republican, member of my country committee will probably not even vote this year unless a Constitution Party Candidate promises to undo stupid things like this, or I write in my own name.

Leri Thomas writes:

Those who drive irresponsibly deserves to have their permits and registrations suspended or revoked. However, suspending car registration and driving permits for non-payment of property taxes, child support and other financial obligations only serve to aggravate the problem. Having been the ex- of a deadbeat father, who never paid a cent before or after the divorce, I ask, how is he supposed to make any money to pay these taxes or child support without transportation? This is particularly bothersome in times when unemployment is rampant and many people are engaged in handyman and other one-man-band sorts of work. A person who doesn't want to pay child support, isn't going to do it, with or without a driving permit. He'll just use the loss of the permit as an excuse to refrain from making future payments.

Mike Smith writes:

Virginia has now screwed up their website so I cannot find the list of members all at once. Go here, it is better than nothing though worse that the former one:

Contact as many House members as you can to stop this before it is voting on in the House or, failing that, start with the Senate. It can be stopped there. Crossover Day is next week. Start hollering at them this week.

Our legislators need to start holding hearings on the whole mess before November's election: Obviously, the way child support is handled is not working.

As I keep saying, we need to look at root causes of marital breakup along with non-marital having of children then expecting taxpayers to pick the tab, while at the same time creating a class of mostly men who spend their entire lives running from the law because of one youthful "indiscretion." It would be nice if we could enforce a law to prohibit all sex outside of marriage and end all but a few divorces. Even if it seems way out of the line of reality --- our electeds could start talking about it. Society has been in ever greater a mess ever since the 1960's when marriage began to be attacked by both Hollywood and Government. We are sunk as a society unless we restore marriage!

Dave Briggman writes:

This began to be a problem two years ago, again in response to a lawsuit I filed against DCSE, where the legislature gave DCSE employees the ability to suspend the drivers license of ANY non-custodial parent, where they were able to previously suspend only the license of an NCP who had an administrative child support order.

With the General Assembly passing the amended legislation, DCSE could now, without the establishment of "willful failure to obey" like courts must use to suspend, suspend a non-custodial parent's driver's license and actually create the inability of an NCP to comply with a child support order...

That's what they did to me, but the trial judge in Circuit Court didn't care.

Dave Briggman writes:

A Legislative Services employee who works with the Courts of Justice Committee advises me that the substitute legislation approved, yesterday, will be up as soon as the Clerks get around to putting it up.

That inspires buttloads of confidence.

Mike Smith writes:

Now the "deadbeat" father not even allowed to see his own children has to compete with illegals for cash work.

And look at the millions of welfare moms who have no idea who the multiple sperm donors of their children are. So, what does government do but come down even harder on those who at least tried to be a parent.

They will garnish most of a man's paycheck so he can't even pay his rent, putting him out on the street, then take his license so he cannot even live in his car!

Another reason why I am a strict Constitutionalist. Where did anyone get the idea government should be involved paying for children?

No incumbent will get my vote this year because we still have the same leadership. I asked them last time to replace Speaker Howell.

Any new candidate will have to commit to changing this horrible, anti marriage, anti father system.

John L. Bauserman, Jr., Esq. writes:

Republicans generally say they are "agin'st big Gubbermint," except of course, when they are for It. Democrats generally say they are for individual civil rights and liberties, except of course, when it comes to supporting the rights of a disfavored class of persons such as delinquent child support payors. Nonetheless, they unite and come together to trample the civil liberties of delinquent child support payors, even when they are delinquent through no particular fault of their own. One wishes our elected officials of both parties could demonstrate similar unity and find compromise on other important issues with the same alacrity as they grant DCSE more draconian administrative child support collection powers.

I counseled a client on advice only basis with no funds and no savings, who has his license suspended. He is a commercial truck driver, who after seven years of keeping his support obligations paid, with only a few brief delinquencies due to unemployment (which he caught up on) finally found himself three full months behind due to unemployment in the recent bad economy. His driver's license was suspended adminstratively by DCSE. There is no such thing as a "restricted commercial driver's license." So filing for a restricted license is no help. He can't pay the minimum payment needed to enter into an administrative agreement with DCSE to reinstate his driver's license. He can't even apply for work in his profession because he can't truthfully say on the applications that he has a valid commercial driver's license. His parents are long since dead and he does not have siblings or a girlfriend or second wife or friend to borrow money from. He can't apply for work in his most highly valued employment, because he does not have a valid commercial driver's license due to DCSE. DCSE follows the script and refuses to reinstate his license, telling him that he has "responsibilities." He wants to work, but DCSE won't let him work. He can't even do different job as a form carpenter or drywaller, because he can't drive to and from work in his own car. DCSE tells the mother that "it's not in her interest to drop the case" (even though DCSE is not supposed to give legal advice to the support recipient). Delegate Athey and other delegates and state senators - I pose the question to you: What would you advise this hard working man to do if you were his lawyer? Of course, this father has not seen his children for several years either, after the mother ran off with another man and moved to a remote part of the state.

John L. Bauserman, Jr., Esq. writes:

Oh, I should mention too, that above aforesaid gentleman does not have any money actually to retain an attorney to seek child support modification (due the changed circumstances of his unemployment). Raise your hands folks, whoever thinks DCSE actually will assist him to file administratively for a downward modification of current child support?!? I predict that when he files with the JDR Court for a downward modification, DCSE will appear in the case and claim that he is voluntarily unemployed and should receive no modification. Meanwhile, do you think DCSE will let him have his DL back so he can have the opportunity to demonstrate the same work ethic as he has during the past sevenyears??

Mike Smith writes:

I know what I would do, drive "illegally." Since driving is a right, like eating, for government to take it away is tantamount to a death sentence. So they catch me, fine me, even jail me. So what! At least I will eat. Then, once out of jail I go underground somehow. Or let the judge jail me indefinitely on contempt or something. Then I will cost the taxpayers thrice, once by not working and "contributing to society," second, by not paying child support at all - thus forcing taxpayers to bear the burden and, third by costing as much as $40,000 a year to keep me in jail.

A better solution? End no-fault divorce, make the person who broke the marriage vow pay the support or surrender the kids, she is a slut and a whore anyway! Bias against fathers must be investigated and ended. No wonder the murder/suicide rate is so high!

Richard Blaine writes:

Connect enforcement of court ordered visitation/custody to enforcement of court ordered child support, and you have a fan in me. Otherwise, this is another method of maintaining the status quo - visitation enforcement divorced from the money (i.e. child support) the state can get. The two should be mutually enforceable.

Mike Smith writes:

No see, no pay! I like that, except it can punish the children more than the keep-a-way mom. How about vouchers for things that benefit the kids instead of the mom? Rumor has it that many moms spend the money on themselves and boyfriends while the kids go hungry. Sorry to keep pickin' on the womenfolk, but so much of today's situation has been driven by the feminist agenda and women wanting out of marriage to us boring and unresponsive men. And end to the Welfare State would help a lot.

James Boswell writes:

I am in the same predicament as the majority of you.Every time I turn around I get a letter saying that DCSE needs me to pay a lump sum of somewhere between 1600 to 1800 hundred dollars or my license will be suspended.I have begged and borrowed from friends and family til there is no more.These non-personality a**holes have no sympathy for any of us and I was once told why am I worried about how I owe when I'll never live long enough to pay it off.F**k this bill DCSE and the a**hole who submitted the bill.I'm sure there's a nice warm corner in hell for your sorry a**.Oh and by the way I live in your district and I will do everything in my power to make everyone I know never votes for you again.

Dave Briggman writes:

Ha! Joke is on all of us, Janes...his buddies in the General Assembly are making this piece of dog squeeze a Circuit Court judge in your district...I would start talking with your Delegate and Senator or this piece of crap is going to be a judge fairly quickly...and the fact this law has parts which require no notice (read: no due process) doesn't seemto conceen the General Assembly at all.

Dave Briggman writes:

Sorry...I meant JAMES.