The following is my floor report for H.98. The bill passed unanimously on a voice vote this past week.

H 98 proposes an expedited confirmatory adoption process. It would provide additional protection for parents who conceived a child through assisted reproduction and who are already legally recognized as parents under Vermont law.

A legal parent-child relationship is core to every child’s stability and well-being because of the many rights and responsibilities that this relationship conveys. A legally recognized parent can make medical and other important decisions for their child. A legally recognized parent-child relationship ensures that a child will have certain benefits, including the right to inherit from their parents.

The Vermont Parentage Act currently provides that a person may establish parentage by consenting to assisted reproduction under Chapter 7 of Title 15C. When children are born through assisted reproduction, one or both of their parents may not be genetically related to them due to the use of donor gametes. Parents who use assisted reproduction, both in Vermont and elsewhere, continue to face the reality that other states may discriminate against them and refuse to recognize their legal status as parents because of a lack of genetic connection. Although Vermont recognizes parents who use assisted reproduction with donor gametes as legal parents, other states may not.

When a family created by assisted reproduction leaves Vermont, for any purpose or duration, the protections of the Vermont Parentage Act may fall short of protecting those children and parents.

A state may choose NOT to recognize the law of another state if it is against its own public policy. But they must recognize legal judgments and court orders of another state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires states to give full recognition to another state’s court orders. Because all U.S. states and jurisdictions are required to recognize validly issued court orders, securing parentage through an adoption order addresses this problem and protects the family.

With an adoption order, if the family moves to another state, that state must recognize the parents’ legal relationships to their children.

Regular adoptions require expensive and intrusive processes such as background checks and home inspections. H.98 would remove the cumbersome, costly, and unnecessary barriers of such a process. It would streamline the adoption process to confirm a parent-child relationship that already exists under Vermont’s Parentage law.

I will now walk you through the bill.  You can follow along on in today’s calendar starting on page _____.

Section 1 of the bill adds a new section to Vermont’s adoption title, Title 15A, that establishes an expedited process for these types of adoptions.  Because the petitioners who would use this section are already legal parents of the child under Vermont law and are living with and caring for that child, the extensive process for adoption of a legal stranger is not required.

Subsection (a) provides definitions.

Subsection (b) establishes the prerequisites for filing a petition to confirm parentage through an adoption of the child.

Subsection (c) sets forth the information that is to be contained in a petition for confirmatory adoption, including:

(1) the petition for adoption signed by all parents;

(2) a copy of the petitioners’ marriage certificate, if petitioners are married;

(3) a declaration signed by the parents explaining the circumstances of the child’s birth through assisted reproduction, attesting to their consent to assisted reproduction, and stating that there are no other persons with a claim to parentage of the child under Title 15C; and  

(4) a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate.

Subsection (d) provides that the complete petition for adoption operates as the petitioner’s written consent to adoption.

Subsection (e) provides that if a petitioner used a donor’s gamete or embryo for conception, notice to or consent of the donor is not required.

Subdivision (f) excludes the confirmatory adoption procedure from requirements of  traditional adoptions. But, the court has the discretion to impose those additional requirements. 

Subdivision (g) provides that the court is to grant the adoption and issue an adoption decree promptly upon finding that:

(1) for marital parents, the parent who gave birth and the spouse were married at the time of the child’s birth and the child was born through assisted reproduction; or

(2) for nonmarital parents:

(A) the person who gave birth and the nonmarital parent consented to the assisted reproduction; and

(B) No other person has a legal claim to parentage or if there is someone with a claim to parentage that person has been notified and, where necessary, consented.

Subsection (h) provides that the Court shall not deny an adoption petition if the petitioner is already a presumed parent or legally recognized in Vermont.

Under Subsection (i), the fact that a person did not file a petition for adoption pursuant to this confirmatory adoption procedure won’t be held against the person in a parentage dispute involving individuals claiming to be presumed parents.

Section 2 of the bill provides that the act is to take effect July 1, 2025.

Madame Speaker,this bill is a common-sense provision that makes the adoption process more streamlined and efficient for parents seeking an adoption decree to firmly establish an existing parent-child relationship recognized under the Vermont Parentage Act.

We heard from the following witnesses:

Team Lead Legislative Counsel

 Director of Family Advocacy , Director of LGBTQ+ Family Law and Policy, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)

 Senior Policy Counsel  Family Equality

 Vermont Judiciary Vermont’s Chief Superior Judge   

A senior partner of a Burlington law firm specializing in adoption and surrogacy law.

Through this bill, Vermont would address an urgent need for parents who seek to secure an adoption decree without unnecessary barriers that would provide important protection for children.The bill passed on a vote of 11-0-0 and we ask for the body’s support.

The House Judiciary Committee, which I have the privilege to chair, has had a productive Session so far. Below, I highlight five bills that our Committee has already passed and that are on their way to the Senate.

House Bill 27 supports Vermont’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission. The Commission tracks domestic violence homicide trends, conducts in-depth case reviews, identifies factors that increase the risk of domestic violence, and recommends systemic changes to reduce incidents of domestic violence. H.27 would allow the Commission to review trends and patterns of near-fatal instances of domestic violence in Vermont, in addition to fatal instances of domestic violence. Expanding the cases the Commission can review will give it valuable insight into opportunities for intervention and prevention of domestic violence. In addition, H.27 expands the membership of the Commission to gain the perspectives of additional key stakeholders, including victims’ advocates.

H.41 would establish a felony charge for abusing the dead body of a person. The bill was introduced in response to a brutal murder last year in Enosburg where the murderer also burned the victim’s body. This new statute would prohibit a person from engaging in various types of conduct that constitutes abuse of a corpse. Specifically, it creates a five-year felony for a person who, without legal authorization, burns, mutilates, disfigures, dismembers, or destroys a dead human body. The bill also would create an enhanced penalty when a person commits this conduct with the intent to conceal a crime or avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction of a crime or when a person commits a sexual act with the dead human body.

H.44 would make a variety of changes to Vermont’s laws governing impaired driving, such as closing loopholes to ensure that the DMV is notified of license suspensions and creating proportionate accountability for noncompliance with warrant-based blood draws.

H.98 proposes an expedited confirmatory adoption process for individuals who conceived a child through assisted reproduction and are deemed to be parents under Vermont law. Vermont’s current adoption process is primarily written for more traditional adoptions that bring children into new homes and families. These adoptions appropriately require a detailed process involving lengthy and expensive home studies, notice to genetic parents, waiting periods, and other requirements. These extensive requirements are not appropriate in situations where the purpose of the adoption is to confirm legal parent-child relationships that have existed since birth and are already recognized under state law. Families created by assisted reproduction have established parentage relationships under Vermont law but other states may not recognize that status, which can become an issue when families travel or relocate. Confirmatory adoption allows for adoption decrees that must be honored in all states, which is critical to protect the childrens’ best interests and safety.

Finally, H.118 would expand the scope of Vermont’s hate crime statute to cover conduct directed at third parties and groups of people based on their actual or perceived membership in a protected category. Vermont’s current hate crime statute operates as a penalty enhancement rather than a separate criminal charge with its own penalties. Under current law, a person who commits an underlying crime that is motivated by the victim’s membership in a protected category – like race, color, religion, national origin, and others – may be sentenced to additional time in prison, an additional monetary fine, or both, if prosecutors invoke this statute. H.118 amends the hate-motivated crimes statute by replacing the phrase “the victim’s actual or perceived protected category” with “another person’s or a group of persons’ actual or perceived membership in a protected category” as the basis on which to impose the statute’s enhanced penalty.

The following is the report on H.118, which I cosponsored, that Representative Angela Arsenault delivered on the House Floor last week.

[H.118] proposes to expand the scope of Vermont’s hate crime statute to cover conduct directed at third parties and groups of people based on their actual or perceived membership in a protected category.

Before I dive into the bill, it’s important to understand that Vermont’s hate crime statute operates as a penalty enhancement rather than a separate criminal charge with its own penalties. A person who commits an underlying crime that is motivated by the victim’s membership in a protected category – like race, color, religion, national origin, and others – may be sentenced to additional time in prison, an additional monetary fine, or both if this statute is invoked.

As an example, let’s take the crime of unlawful mischief and look at how the hate crimes statute can play a role.  

A person can be charged with unlawful mischief if they intentionally cause damage to property.  For instance, if someone spray paints an antisemitic symbol on another person’s doorway and it causes less than $250 in damage, that person could be charged with unlawful mischief. If the person is charged and the prosecutor can prove that the person’s action was motivated by the occupant’s membership in a protected category, the prosecutor could choose to use the hate-motivated crimes statute to enhance the underlying unlawful mischief penalty.  The unlawful mischief penalty is imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of not more than $500, or both. With the hate crimes enhancement, the penalty could be up to two years in prison or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both.

Turning to the bill language itself, section one of H.118 amends the hate-motivated crimes statute by replacing the phrase: “the victim’s actual or perceived protected category” in subdivisions (a) and (b), with “another person’s or a group of persons’ actual or perceived membership in a protected category” as the basis on which to impose the statute’s enhanced penalty.  This change broadens the reach of the statute to cover conduct directed at a third person or group of persons rather than just a singular victim.  

Looking to the example I gave before, let’s say the door that was spray painted was in a rental apartment building and the tenant whose door was spray painted is Jewish. But the owner of the building is not Jewish. Under the current statute, the hate crimes enhancement could not be used because the victim – the owner of the building – is not Jewish. H.118 would make it possible to use the enhancement because there is evidence that another group of persons in the apartment building – the Jewish family – was targeted because of their religion, which is one of the protected categories in the hate crimes statute.

Finally, in section two, the bill states that this change goes into effect on July 1, 2025.

Madam Speaker, H.118 is an important expansion of Vermont’s hate-motivated crimes statute because it more accurately captures the conduct that such a statute is intended to penalize. We must, whenever possible, find appropriate ways to express through our laws what is and is not acceptable in our society. Hateful conduct is not acceptable. This bill helps ensure that such conduct can be named and prosecuted. 

Your House Judiciary Committee heard from the following witnesses:

• The director of policy and legislative affairs at the Vermont Attorney General’s office, 
• A policy and research analyst from the Office of Racial Equity
• The executive director of the Vermont Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs
• Legislative attorney for the Dept. of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs
• Legislative Counsel from the Office of Legislative Counsel
• The Deputy Defender General and Chief Juvenile Defender from the Defender General’s office
• The advocacy director for ACLU of Vermont 
• And the president of Vermont Law and Graduate School. 
• H.118 passed out of House Judiciary with a vote of 11-0-0 and we ask for this body’s support.