Author: lalonde

Standby Guardianship

lalonde

The following is my floor report for H.98 on May 13.

Earlier this Session the House passed H.98, which established a confirmatory adoption process.  The Senate has concurred with that portion of the bill. It also amended H.98, adding provisions that establish what is referred to as Standby Guardianship.  

The language of the bill can be found on the legislative website. As a reminder, section one of H.98 establishes an expedited confirmatory adoption process for parents who conceived a child through assisted reproduction, and who are already recognized as parents under Vermont law. This process gives additional protection for parental rights when these parents travel outside of Vermont. It provides a judgment issued by a court that must be recognized by other states. The Senate made no changes to this provision that passed the House. 

The Senate’s amendment added Sections 2 through 8. These sections clarify the process for immigrant parents to create a guardianship for children in the event that the parents are subject to adverse immigration proceedings. 

Before walking through these sections, I’ll provide a bit of background. Vermont Legal Aid currently oversees an Immigrant Minor Standby Guardianship Project. The project helps immigrant parents make a plan for who will care for their children if the parents cannot do so because they have been arrested or detained by immigration authorities. The project connects immigrant parents with legal representation. The attorneys meet with parents and proposed guardians to fill out Powers of Attorney and minor guardianship documents, which can subsequently be used in a petition to the court to create the guardianship.

So, what happens if a parent is arrested or detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). There is an ICE directive that addresses this situation. Madam Speaker, may I read from that directive? 

“ICE personnel should accommodate a Covered Individual’s efforts to make alternative care arrangements for their minor children . . . prior to their arrest or detention. . . If the Covered Individual cannot make an alternative care arrangement for the minor children at the time of arrest, . . . ICE personnel must contact the local child welfare authority or law enforcement agency to take custody of the minor children.”  End quote.

Presumably, under this directive, ICE would accommodate the plan that an undocumented parent has put together with the help of Vermont Legal Aid, and would facilitate placing the children in the alternative care arrangement. If for whatever reason ICE does not accommodate any care arrangements prior to arrest or detention, the Vermont Department of Children and Families would likely become involved.

In that case, DCF has an operating agreement with Vermont Legal Aid (or VLA). Madam Speaker, may I read from that agreement?

“DCF and VLA believe that the well-being of children of immigrant parents who have been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is best promoted through efforts to establish safe and appropriate legal guardianship arrangements with people already known to the children whenever possible. DCF and Vermont Legal Aid are making this agreement to honor the intent of immigrant parents to establish powers of attorney and minor guardianships for their children whenever possible.” End quote.

Under the agreement, when DCF learns of children of parents who have been detained by ICE, DCF will contact Vermont Legal Aid. If there has been minor guardianship and power of attorney paperwork prepared for the family. and there is no concern regarding the safety of the children, DCF will coordinate with Homeland Security, Border Patrol, or local law enforcement, as well as Vermont Legal Aid to unite the children with their proposed standby guardian.

One way or another, either directly by ICE or through DCF, the children could be united with the proposed standby guardian where one has been arranged ahead of time. 

What if the parents have not made arrangements for alternative care ahead of time and they face arrest or detention? Again, under ICE policy, the parents may, at the time of their arrest, try to make an alternative care arrangement for their minor children. If the parents are unable to make alternative care arrangements on such short notice, the child would likely end up in DCF custody. Making these arrangements earlier allows the parents to communicate with potential guardians in a non-urgent context and avoid the many downsides of DCF custody, which I will explain later.

In any event, to make the proposed guardianship official, the parent or their representative must petition the court. And that is where H.98 comes in. The bill clarifies the court process to create a so-called “Standby guardianship.”

Back to a section-by-section explanation of the bill.

Section 2 of the bill provides various definitions. Subdivision (8) defines “Standby guardianship” as “a consensual guardianship agreement between the custodial parent and their chosen guardian . . . in which the custodial parent has been subject to an adverse immigration action that has rendered the parent unavailable to care for their child.” Subdivision (9) defines “Adverse immigration action.” This subdivision provides six different situations in which a custodial parent could be rendered unavailable to care for their child due to either deportation, detention, or denial of entry.

Section 3 begins by amending Title 14 VSA 2623 to differentiate between petitions for regular guardianship and standby guardianship, and when it is an emergency petition. 

This section establishes requirements for the information to be included in the petition, such as the proposed guardian’s relationship to the child, names of other household members, why the guardianship is being sought, and several other important factors that a court shall take into consideration when determining whether or not to grant a guardianship. 

This section also requires notice of service to all parties involved, although there are exceptions. The court may waive notice requirements if the identity or location of the parent is unknown, if the parent is detained as a result of an adverse immigration action, or if no contact can be made with the parents after reasonable efforts have been made. If the factors involved in this exception change, the court must reopen the proceeding at the request of a parent of the child who did not receive notice. 

Section 4 concerns the hearing that must be held before a guardianship petition is granted. Under current law, subsection F permits the court to delay a hearing until after an emergency petition is filed if the parents are unavailable because they are medically incapacitated or deceased. This bill also permits the courts to grant an emergency petition for a standby guardianship if the custodial parent has been subject to an adverse immigration action that renders the parent unavailable to care for the child. 

Section 5 describes the procedures for obtaining a standby guardianship. The custodial parent and the proposed guardian can sign the petition and other required forms in advance, so that the guardian or the parent’s attorney can retain the signed forms and only file them with the court if the parent is subject to an adverse immigration action. 

In summary, subsections A through F provide rules related to submitting consent forms by the custodial parent, the numerous requirements that must be agreed to between parents and potential guardians, the manner in which the Vermont Rules of Evidence shall apply, the threshold of evidence needed to grant a petition, a rebuttable presumption that the guardianship is in the best interest of the child so long as certain factors are established, and the required timelines for both holding a hearing and issuing a guardianship if granted. 

Section 6 adds standby guardianships to the list of guardianship orders that may be issued by the Probate Division. The order must include provisions addressing the guardian’s powers and duties, the expected duration of the guardianship (if known), a family plan consistent with the parties’ agreement, and the process for reviewing the order.

If a standby guardianship is granted due to an adverse immigration action, the custodial parent may be detained in a federal facility or relocated outside the country. For that reason, Section 7 permits the guardian to provide status reports to the custodial parent at the parent’s last known email address, because contacting the parent by regular mail may not be feasible. 

Additionally, because the parent’s location may limit their ability to meet court procedural requirements, Section 8 permits the parent to appear remotely at continuation hearings, and permits the court to waive formatting and signing requirements for good cause shown in proceedings to terminate the guardianship.

Section 9 provides that the confirmatory adoption proceedings section of H.98 takes effect on July 1, 2025, and that the standby guardianship sections take effect on passage.

  • We heard from the following witnesses:
  • Legislative counsel
  • The director of the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project
  • An attorney from Vermont Legal Aid
  • The chief superior judge
  • Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families
  • An alternate guardian from Bellows Falls

The vote in committee was 6-3-2.

H.98 clarifies a process that allows immigrant parents to identify trusted adults who can step in as temporary guardians if the parent is detained or deported. The parent’s children can get some comfort by knowing the person that would care for them in the event their parents are detained. This process helps ease traumatic separations or confusion in emergency situations.

It also avoids the necessity for DCF to take legal custody of the children in these situations. Under current law, some courts may grant petitions for temporary guardianships when a parent is detained or deported by ICE.  But some courts may not grant such petitions. H.98 clearly authorizes Vermont courts to approve Standby Guardianships so long as the criteria of the bill are met. H.98 provides needed clarity and consistency in our courts to help avoid unnecessary DCF custody.

And there are downsides to DCF custody in these situations. The Department’s focus is on taking care of children in abusive situations, not in situations where children are separated from their parents due to an adverse immigration action. In addition, once children have been placed in DCF legal custody, they cannot be released to an informal guardian or easily reunited with their parent in another country. 

DCF is fully supportive of H.98.

H.98 is centered on ensuring the best interests of children. It allows families some peace of mind, knowing that there is a path to put into place their plans to keep their children safe and in community care.

I ask for your support. 

Vermont Can Hold Polluters Accountable, by Senator Nader Hashim and Representative Martin LaLonde

lalonde

When floodwaters tore through Vermont in July 2023 and then again exactly a year later, they left more than physical destruction in their wake. They also revealed to Vermonters the mounting price tag of climate change. While national media attention may have shifted to climate-change catastrophes in other parts of the country, Vermont families are still displaced, businesses are shuttered or drowning in debt, and communities are struggling to rebuild.

The financial toll of climate change in Vermont is real and ongoing. Every washed-out road, damaged bridge, and flooded home and business represents a cost someone must pay – and right now, that burden falls squarely on Vermont taxpayers. We see it through higher property taxes, rising insurance premiums, and reduced municipal services.

This dire reality prompted our legislature to pass the Climate Superfund Act, applying the same principle that has governed environmental cleanup for more than 40 years: Those who contribute to a problem should help pay for its solution. 

Overwhelming scientific consensus tells us that some of the world’s largest and most profitable fossil fuel corporations are at the root of the climate crisis. For decades, these corporations knew their products were likely to cause the kind of costly damage Vermont increasingly faces as the planet overheats. Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act applies this established polluter-pays approach to the mounting costs of our climate-related disasters, requiring these corporations to pay their fair share and help clean up the climate mess their products and activities have caused.

Americans across the political spectrum have long embraced the ethical standard that when someone makes a mess, they should help clean it up. Directing these massive fossil fuel corporations to contribute to recovery efforts isn’t radical, it’s basic fairness.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court of Vermont to stop the law from being enforced. DOJ makes several claims including that the Climate Superfund Act is preempted by the Clean Air Act, exceeds the territorial reach of Vermont’s legislative power, unlawfully discriminates against interstate commerce, conflicts with federal interstate commerce power, and is preempted by federal foreign-affairs powers. Last year, when we took up the bill that would become the Climate Superfund Act, he House and Senate Judiciary Committees vetted the legal and constitutional claims that could be made against the Act and we were confident that it would stand up in court.

As chairs of the Vermont General Assembly’s Judiciary Committees, we take our legal and constitutional obligations seriously. We appreciate the proper balance between state and federal authority. States have long served as the proving grounds for practical solutions to our challenges, and Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act continues this proud tradition. 

The law establishes a careful, science-based process to determine which companies should contribute and how much, ensuring fairness while addressing pressing needs.

This law passed with strong support from Vermonters of all political parties, but we knew that powerful interests would fight back. The recently filed lawsuits against Vermont and our neighbors in New York, who passed their own Climate Superfund Act, merely confirms what we already understood: Our approach is effective enough to warrant powerful opposition.

Vermont has always stood firm in defending our right to protect our citizens and preserve our way of life. From our founding days to the present, we’ve maintained that local solutions often best address local problems. We deeply appreciate the work Vermont’s congressional delegation and state officials are doing to defend our state’s authority, and call on them to continue that work as long as necessary. We must hold accountable those who profit while others pay the price.

Climate change presents unprecedented challenges but addressing them requires the same principles of responsibility and fairness that have always guided our legal system. Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act upholds these principles while protecting taxpayers from bearing costs they shouldn’t have to shoulder alone.

Reaffirming Our Commitment to Transgender and Nonbinary Vermonters

lalonde

Last week, the Vermont House of Representatives passed J.R.S. 15, a resolution that reaffirms our unwavering commitment to dignity, equality, and human rights for all people, especially our transgender and nonbinary neighbors, friends, and family members.

This public commitment should be uncontroversial and unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is neither.

The official policy of the United States government is that transgender and nonbinary people are not worthy of recognition and do not deserve protection of the law. Many states also have policies that echo this dehumanization and disrespect, putting their transgender and nonbinary citizens at risk.

The day after his inauguration, the president signed an executive order that sought to erase legal recognition of transgender and nonbinary people. The order sought to define these individuals out of existence. It went on to require federal agencies to remove all references to gender identity in their regulations and communications.

A later, similarly offensive executive order barring transgender individuals from serving in the military stated that being transgender is incompatible with “an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the military ban, finding that it was “soaked in animus.”

In contrast with these degradations, Vermont has passed laws that recognize and protect the civil rights of transgender and nonbinary people. From laws ensuring access to education, housing, employment, and public accommodations without discrimination; to policies that allow Vermonters to affirm their identities in vital records; to legislation that safeguards the right to access gender-affirming care and shields families and providers from out-of-state political interference. Vermont has not only stood by its values, it has led.

Transgender and nonbinary Vermonters are part of the fabric of our communities. They are our teachers, our nurses, our baristas, our students, our colleagues. They deserve to live freely and authentically, without fear of discrimination or exclusion. We made clear in this resolution that in Vermont, they are not only welcomed—they are valued.

J.R.S. 15 is not only a resolution. It is a reaffirmation. A reaffirmation that the state of Vermont will not waver in our defense of equity. And a declaration that we will keep fighting to ensure every Vermonter, regardless of gender identity, is treated with the respect and humanity they deserve.

J.R.S. 15 is a promise to transgender and nonbinary individuals that we have their backs, that we’re here to protect them in Vermont. As the resolution states, “all individuals are welcome here and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.”

Public Safety Update

lalonde

Public safety continues to be a concern for many Vermonters. In his January budget address, the governor noted that Vermonters do not feel safe and incidents of certain types of crime have increased. He correctly noted that “one solution is more accountability.” The governor also said that taxpayers “made it clear they want us to fix broken systems, not just fund them.” 

The governor’s suggested fixes were contained in a so-called omnibus public safety bill. The bill was not introduced until late in this Session, but based on a preview of what it would contain, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees were able to start work on proposals in that bill in early January.

In the House Judiciary Committee, we tackled concerns related to juvenile justice, including the “raise the age” initiative. Vermont was the first state in the country to treat 18-year-olds accused of most crimes as juvenile offenders rather than adults. 

Based on research showing that young people’s brains are still developing into their 20s, the reform was set to gradually increase the age that youth could be sent to family court. There, cases remain confidential and offenders receive rehabilitative services aimed at helping them avoid future criminal behavior. Young adults accused of serious violent crimes, like murder and a handful of other felonies, would still be charged in adult court. 

In 2020, the state brought 18-year-olds into the juvenile system and 19-year-olds were set to follow in 2022. However, the Legislature has had to repeatedly extend the date for adding 19-year-olds, most recently to April 1, 2025.

After extensive testimony, it became clear that the administration, through the Department of Children and Families, was again not ready to proceed with raising the age to 19. In part, this was due to difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. It also stemmed from the challenge of holding 18- and 19-year-olds accountable when they are resistant to treatment and unwilling to change their behavior. In light of these concerns, the administration proposed repealing the law that would allow 19-year-olds to be treated in family court rather than criminal court.

Our committee agreed that adding 19-year-olds to DCF’s workload at this time would stretch its already over-stretched resources. But, given the recognized benefits to public safety of addressing most youth in family court and providing them with rehabilitative services, last week the legislature in H.2 instead delayed the addition of 19-year-olds to July 2027. The delay will give the administration and the legislature additional time to develop approaches to improve accountability for those treatment-resistant individuals in the older age group.

In the second half of this Session, the House Judiciary Committee will work on bills received from the Senate that also address provisions in the administration’s public safety bill. S.12 would create a uniform, simplified system of sealing – rather than completely erasing or “expunging” – criminal records. It would allow criminal records for certain crimes to be sealed automatically if the offender receives no additional criminal convictions over a defined time period. The individual would no longer have a criminal record, which would eliminate overly punitive obstacles to obtaining housing, employment, and education. Sealing rather than expunging these records would also ensure access for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes as well as for background checks necessary to ensure public safety.

The House Judiciary Committee will also continue to work on amendments to the State’s extradition procedures, bail revocation, and the definition of recidivism, also among the administration’s priorities.

I support these initiatives and some of them might bring additional accountability. But they won’t “fix” the system, despite the administration’s claims. True accountability for criminal offenses requires additional funding for the criminal justice system.

Our court system currently faces a backlog of cases and recently experienced a number of judicial vacancies, which exacerbated the problem. These vacancies have since been filled and the legislature approved three additional judges in the FY 2025 budget. The increase in judicial resources will help, but without additional resources for pre-charge diversion, as well as additional resources for prosecutors and public defenders, it will still take years to clear the backlog. And due to the backlog and a lack of resources, criminal cases are not being processed in a timely manner.

Funding programs to divert cases out of the criminal justice system and thus reduce pressure on the courts is a top priority of the House Judiciary Committee. The governor’s budget contains no funding to divert cases from the courts through the pre-charge diversion program. Pre-charge diversion occurs when individuals who commit low-level crimes are referred to community providers of restorative justice, such as community justice centers, instead of to court. Over the past three years, an average of 698 cases per year have been diverted from the courts prior to being charged. Act 180 of 2024 established a state-wide pre-charge diversion program, which should divert even more cases from the courts. But this program requires funding.

The governor’s proposed budget does not provide the resources the criminal justice system needs to ensure the public is safe. Accordingly, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the budget include the resources necessary to enable cases to be resolved in a timely fashion. Only by doing so will individuals be held accountable for their actions as soon as possible after offending – a key to ensuring public safety.

This is admittedly a difficult budgeting year, with many needs but reduced resources. Nevertheless, to improve public safety by ensuring more expeditious resolution of criminal cases, it is critical that we find a way to provide the entire justice system with sufficient resources.

H.2 Raise the Age Bill report

lalonde

The following is my report that I delivered in the House Chamber on H.2.

The juvenile justice system handles the supervision, care, and rehabilitation of juveniles accused of criminal acts. Vermont’s juvenile justice system has several goals: To protect public safety. To connect youth to age-appropriate services that reduce recidivism. And to shield youth from the adverse impact of a criminal record, helping them become responsible and productive members of the community.

The system helps to prevent the taint of criminality from the juvenile offender. To this end, unlike in criminal court, juvenile delinquency proceedings are confidential. In addition, the juvenile is not saddled with a criminal record. While rehabilitating the juvenile is a focus, the system also seeks to ensure protection of the community and accountability to victims.

In Vermont, juvenile offenders are brought to Family Court instead of Criminal Court. In general, when a person is charged with a criminal offense in Vermont, the court system they enter depends on their age and the severity of the crime. Currently, with some exceptions, if someone age 10-18 is charged with a crime, they are processed as juvenile delinquents in Family Court. One of the exceptions occurs if they are charged with one of the most serious crimes such as murder or arson. In that case their case will start in criminal court. If the offender is over 18, they are processed in Criminal Court. But for individuals 18 to 21 years old who are alleged to have committed a crime, there is another path to the family court called Youthful Offender. H.2 does not deal with Youthful Offender, but it is good to have the whole picture.

H.2 addresses several issues related to the treatment of juvenile delinquents. The bill primarily amends the age range for individuals who initially appear in Family Court in a delinquency proceeding.

I will now take you through the bill.

Sections 1 and 2, starting at page _ of Today’s Calendar, concern the age range of children who can be subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings in the Family Division of the Superior Court.

Under current law, a delinquency proceeding can be brought against a person who is at least 10 years old and not older than 18. If a person younger than 10 commits an unlawful act, the behavior might still be introduced in another type of proceeding, such as one to terminate parental rights, but it could not be the basis of a juvenile proceeding in Family Court. The only exception to this is that a juvenile proceeding can be brought against a child under age 10 for murder.

Section 1 of H.2 proposes to change this structure in two ways. First, the bill proposes to increase the minimum age, so that a child would have to be at least 12 in order to be subject to delinquency proceedings. The effect of this change would be that delinquency proceedings could not be brought against 10- or 11-year-olds. Second, H.2 proposes to repeal the exception for murder, so that children under 12 could not be subject to delinquency proceedings for any offense.

This change was prompted by a recommendation in a 2024 report from the Racial Disparities in the Juvenile and Criminal Justice System Advisory Panel (RDAP).

This change recognizes that children are fundamentally different from adults. Their brains are not fully developed. Young children, regardless of the misconduct, do not have the legal capacity to form criminal intent or the competency to comprehend basic legal principles.

The Vermont Defender General’s Office provided testimony in support of this change and stated that it would be very challenging to find a youth under 12 years old to be competent to stand trial. Witnesses also noted that, in the past 25 years, the exception for ten-year-olds related to murder has not been used.

There are other, better ways to handle individuals in this age group who break the law. Courts are empowered to order a broad range of services designed to support a child and their family to address any behavioral concerns without criminalizing young children.

While about half the country has no minimum age for juvenile court jurisdiction, many of our neighboring states have a higher minimum age. For example, New York and Massachusetts both have a minimum age of 12 for children who can be brought into Family Court, and New Hampshire goes even further with a minimum age of 13 (with certain carve-outs).

No witness opposed this section of the bill.

Moving to section 3, found on page _ of today’s calendar.

Generally, jurisdiction over a juvenile ends at age 18. But current law permits a court to extend its jurisdiction if the person committed the offense as an older teenager. For example, if the person was 16 or 17 years old when they committed the offense, the court can extend jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 19th birthday. This permits the Department for Children and Families to supervise and treat the person for a longer period.

Section 2 of the bill adds one year to this authority, so in the case of an offense committed by a 16 or 17 year old, the court could extend its jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 20th birthday. In the case of an offense committed by an 18 year old, the court could extend jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 21st birthday.

During testimony on H.2, witnesses shared that there are missed opportunities for accountability when a juvenile ages out of the system and full adherence to case management plans can’t be achieved. When a juvenile ages out of the system, court supervision ends and all intervention regarding that specific case stops. To address this, H.2 extends the opportunity for court supervision so there is more time for the juvenile court supervision process to provide rehabilitation and accountability.
Turning to sections 3 through 9 starting on page _ of Today’s Calendar.

Sections 3 through 9 propose an additional 2-year extension, until July 1, 2027, on the further implementation of the Raise the Age initiative.

Prior to this initiative, most youthful offenders age 17 or younger could be charged as a juvenile in the Family Division.

Upon passing the “Raise the Age” law (Act 201) in 2018, Vermont became the first state in the country to treat 18-year-olds accused of most crimes as juvenile offenders, rather than adults.

Based on research that shows young people’s brains are still developing into their 20s, the reform was set to gradually increase the age that youth could be sent to family court, where cases remain confidential. As discussed earlier, through the family court process, offenders receive rehabilitative services aimed at helping them avoid future criminal behavior. Young adults accused of serious violent crimes, like murder and a handful of other felonies, would still be charged in adult court. The state brought 18-year-olds into the juvenile system in 2020. 19-year-olds were set to follow in 2022, but the Legislature extended that date by one year, to July 1st of 2023, as a result of the COVID emergency. Two years ago the Legislature extended that date by another year, to July 1st of 2024, and last year the Legislature extended it again to April 1st of this year.

With the last extension, this body added a reporting requirement to monitor progress by the Department for Children and Families in moving toward the implementation date. Although reports showed some progress on this measure, DCF’s last report asked lawmakers this year to pause the move indefinitely.

Since the start of the session, House Judiciary has taken extensive testimony focused on understanding the processes involved with juvenile justice, and specifically with the long-delayed Raise the Age initiative. The committee heard testimony that covered a range of perspectives on this topic. The Department of Children and Families, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs and Department of Public Safety called for a repeal of the act raising the age to 19 year olds. The Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate testified that we should proceed on April 1st. Still others, including the Office of Racial Equity and the Office of the Defender General testified that raising the age to 19 is the right approach, but we should only proceed when the change is likely to succeed. And currently, due to staffing, programmatic, and infrastructure inadequacies, DCF is not ready to proceed to this next step.

Based on this testimony, and on the reporting of DCF, your House Judiciary Committee concluded that now is not the right time to expand Raise the Age to 19-year-olds.

Adding 19 year olds to DCF’s workload at this time would stretch already over-stretched resources. DCF’s ability to supervise and serve the youth already in the juvenile justice system would be hampered. DCF, and specifically the Family Services Division that oversees juvenile delinquents, is already having difficulties with recruiting and retaining staff. In FY24, the vacancy rate for Family Services Workers rose to 11.4% with a turnover rate of 16%. Expanding to 19 year olds at this time would exacerbate this problem by putting additional stress on Family Services workers.

Also, working with 18 and 19 year olds in this context presents different challenges than working with those who are under 18. Different interventions are needed when individuals in this age group are resistant to treatment or otherwise opposed to changing their behavior. DCF needs additional time and experience to get those interventions right while working with 18 year olds.

The delay will give DCF additional experience in adapting more effective interventions for 18 year olds before adding 19 year olds. It will also give the administration and the legislature additional time to develop approaches to improve accountability for those treatment resistant individuals in the 18 year old age group before adding 19 year olds.

In short, DCF has inadequate capacity and experience to expand Raise the Age at this time. More time is needed to make sure the system is ready for the expansion.

So, sections 3 and 4 delete the April 1, 2025 implementation date, and Sections 5-9 reenact the language changes necessary to permit 19-year-olds who commit certain offenses to have their cases start in the Family Division. These are offenses that are not part of what we call the Big 14 – murder, arson, and similar serious offenses. These language changes become law on July 1, 2027 under the Effective Date provisions in Section 11. This extension gives DCF more time to increase capacity and experience for the expansion.

But to check on whether necessary progress is being made, Section 10 of the bill, starting on page _ of Today’s Calendar, outlines clear reporting requirements to monitor readiness.

Section 10 requires the Agency of Human Services to provide the Joint Justice Oversight Committee (as well as several other Senate and House Committees) with two progress reports on the requirement that the Raise the Age initiative be implemented on July 1, 2027. These are very similar to the bimonthly reports that AHS provided over the past year. They must describe the steps taken to achieve such specified goals as establishing a secure residential facility, expanding capacity for nonresidential treatment programs to provide community-based services, and improving recruitment and retention of staff.

This year a new provision was added to the report requiring AHS to provide data on the Red Clover Treatment Facility, including the number of youths who use the facility, their length of stay, their treatment needs, and their racial and gender demographic data. Section 10 also makes clear that the failure by DCF to meet one of these progress report goals cannot be a basis for extending the implementation of the Raise the Age initiative beyond July 1, 2027.

Section 11 contains the effective dates. A particularly important part is subsection (b), which has a March 31, 2025 effective date for the sections that repeal the Raise the Age provisions scheduled to go into effect on April 1st. This is necessary to ensure that the provisions are repealed before they go into effect.

The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

H.2 provides important updates to the age of individuals subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings. It also pauses the next step in Vermont’s Raise the Age initiative given the reality that more work is needed before we take that step. If we do not pass this bill, that next step will occur on April 1 of this year, less than three weeks from today. DCF is simply not ready to properly supervise and serve a population of 19 year olds at this time. And by further taxing DCF’s resources, we will be dis-serving those youth already under their supervision.

The Committee vote was 7-2-2 and I ask for your support.

Confirmatory Adoption

lalonde

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.

Judiciary Committee Update

lalonde

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.

Amendment to Hate Crime Law

lalonde

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.