Any spouse who without cause deserts or willfully neglects or refuses or fails to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her spouse, and any parent who deserts or willfully neglects or refuses or fails to provide for the support and maintenance of his or her child under the age of eighteen years of age, or child of whatever age who is crippled or otherwise incapacitated from earning a living, the spouse, child or children being then and there in necessitous circumstances, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding $500, or confinement in jail not exceeding twelve months, or both, or on work release employment as provided in § 53.1-131 for a period of not less than ninety days nor more than twelve months; or in lieu of the fine or confinement being imposed upon conviction by the court or by verdict of a jury he or she may be required by the court to suffer a forfeiture of an amount not exceeding the sum of $1,000 and the fine or forfeiture may be directed by the court to be paid in whole or in part to the spouse, or to the guardian, curator, custodian or trustee of the minor child or children, or to some discreet person or responsible organization designated by the court to receive it. This section shall not apply to the parent of a child of whatever age, if the child qualifies for and is receiving aid under a federal or state program for aid to the permanently and totally disabled; or is an adult and meets the visual requirements for aid to the blind; and for this purpose any state agency shall use only the financial resources of the child of whatever age in determining eligibility; however, such parent is subject to prosecution under this section for the desertion or nonsupport of a spouse or of another child who is not receiving such aid.
1944, p. 210; Michie Suppl. 1946, § 1936; 1950, p. 613; 1954, c. 481; 1960, c. 275; 1966, c. 360; 1970, c. 284; 1972, cc. 460, 845; 1973, cc. 315, 346; 1974, c. 464; 1975, c. 644; 1976, c. 462; 2010, c. 619.
Notes of Decisions
Williams v. Commonwealth, 706 S.E.2d 530 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 54× “2-128, and two counts of failure to provide support for his minor children, in violation of Code § 20-61. On appeal, appellant alleges that 1) the trial court erred by failing to properly take notice of its judicial records and the facts regarding the date and time of…”
Walthall v. Commonwealth, 353 S.E.2d 169 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 14× “This notation apparently referred to the case *677 proceeding under Code § 20-72, 2 rather than as a misdemeanor charge under Code § 20-61, 3 so that an award of child support could be entered based upon the financial ability or earning capacity of the defendant, “instead of’…”
Jones v. Robinson, 329 S.E.2d 794 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 8× “*283 The statutes Code § 20-61 defines the crime of desertion and nonsupport, classifies it as a misdemeanor, and recites the punishments which may be imposed upon conviction.”
Bennett v. Com., Dept. of Soc. Servs., 472 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “The father contends, therefore, that because the mother is no longer required to remain at home to care for Isaac, the trial court erred by declining to impute income to the mother in calculating their respective child support obligations.”
Cutshaw v. Cutshaw, 261 S.E.2d 52 (Va. 1979).
· cites it 3× “Va. Code § 20-61. Of course, this obligation does not preclude the parent from contracting to support the children after their minority.”
Ibarra v. Holder, Jr., 736 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “13, § 1304 (Westlaw through 1996 legislation); Virginia: Va.Code Ann. §§ 20-61, 18.2-371 23 (Michie, Westlaw *920 through 1996 legislation); Wisconsin: Wis.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 492 S.E.2d 495 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 4× “" We agree, but only if that child is then eighteen years of age. The provisions at issue must be construed in context with the statutory scheme providing for child support.”
Fry v. Schwarting, 355 S.E.2d 342 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “1 Code § 20-61 authorizes courts to order that support be paid after a child attains majority under certain circumstances, none of which are applicable in this instance.”
Kelley v. Kelley, 449 S.E.2d 55 (Va. 1994).
· cites it 2× “* We awarded the Wife an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals, concluding that the case involves a matter of significant precedential value.”
Yohay v. Ryan, 359 S.E.2d 320 (Va. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “2(2) provides: The court, in determining the amount of support of a child or children to whom a duty of support is owed pursuant to § 20-61, shall consider the following: (a) The age and physical and mental condition of the child or children; (b) The independent financial…”
Mullin v. Mullin, 610 S.E.2d 331 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2d 52, 54 (1979) (per curiam) (holding that the language "under the age ofT8” contained in Code § 20-61 means that the parent’s child support obligation ceases to exist "after the child’s 18th birthday”).”
D'Auria v. D'Auria, 340 S.E.2d 164 (Va. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 2× “2d 513, 515 (1979); Code § 20-61. The authority granted the trial court by Code § 20-107.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.