[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6094412,"mediaKeyId","2844363-0f1f8486ee84974b235b03f2663cd896","parentId",2844363,"title","AG office and advocates back H.105 to expand youth substance‑safety diversion and add 0.02 impaired‑driving referrals to program","audioSeconds",1531,"startMs",3916200,"endMs",5447445,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844363-0f1f8486ee84974b235b03f2663cd896&start=3916&end=5447","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844363-0f1f8486ee84974b235b03f2663cd896/thumbnail_3916200.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6094412/Vermont/AG-office-and-advocates-back-H105-to-expand-youth-substancesafety-diversion-and-add-002-impaireddriving-referrals-to-program","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094412-183c39a61c18101a09ba28dd05e6401d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138499&Signature=RKVIjAOIS9WMA1kiJ82PWa5iW4eVQs4IYXr1HrDgCQIwsrzV~rWeOdK7xwhTgeMnpMGvz~j9NhCq9K-1YgkTg-KnrzrKnelDvM3GGVqfDNBSybzuxPDSJi8A8kGN7dmCtqJzvId-ZnOgDfSxUFWfTAxi83fD9~9~Ngy3dfmQ0KC0cAUZnVqCSxxLhxzkB~EUPHiAN-XC7gBMQud-IsVXGHNAxSEzUP3B1f-3gdNq4MIu8SkOoyQhx0nxlmzI0nNq78UqTZeT8zWl2tJfAEbXNTV50Zzaz~MeY8X0m-~bWL1KFwH~MA65qkX65htWracPdu6eYgE64zb33tB2HNZnfA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Vermont Senate Committee on Judiciary","date","2025-04-02T04:19:18Z","article","Willa Farrell, diversion and pretrial services director at the Attorney General’s Office, and Ben Hogarotsky of the Office of Legislative Council described H.105 to the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 1 and said the bill would align responses to under‑21 alcohol possession and low‑BAC driving (0.02 or less) by clarifying the statutory process and referring eligible youth to the Youth Substance Awareness/Safety (YSAS) diversion program.

Farrell said the change would convert delinquency petitions tied to under‑21 alcohol possession into civil violations under the judicial bureau and allow law enforcement to refer eligible youth directly into YSAS, shortening delay and creating a more consistent statewide response. She said the program uses brief screening tools and tailored interventions; higher‑risk youth are connected to counseling while lower‑risk participants receive a brief intervention. “This bill would lead to a faster intervention with youth, hold youth accountable more quickly, and allow for more timely connection to support services,” Farrell said.

The bill would also fold a 0.02 impaired‑driving referral path into the program so that low‑BAC driving incidents for those under 21 result in YSAS referral rather than prosecutorial delay. Farrell and legislative staff said the change would preserve existing penalties for failure to complete the diversion program (including license suspension and civil fines) while giving youth incentives to complete YSAS (shorter suspension periods for successful completion).

Legislative Council counsel outlined technical changes in the draft statutory language, including retention of current civil penalties (first offense $300 and a 180‑day suspension under certain circumstances) and reporting requirements directing the Attorney General’s Office and statistical partners to compile annual outcome measures on referrals, completions and suspensions. The draft also includes confidentiality provisions for YSAS records and directs a report on program outcomes beginning in October 2026.

Committee members raised practical questions about younger participants and thresholds. One member asked about the distinction between “operate” and “actual physical control”; staff said the language mirrors current law and its application, including scenarios where a person at the wheel is treated as in control even if the car is stationary. Members also discussed whether the 0.02 threshold for under‑21 drivers is appropriate, with some concerns about unintended consequences for very young drivers; witnesses noted that other interventions (including DCF involvement) remain available where warranted.

The draft sets an effective date of July 1 and preserves existing reinstatement and restricted‑license procedures. The committee did not take a formal vote; staff said they would be available for technical markup and additional hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary - 2025-04-01 - 10:30 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Witnesses and staff described H.105 as a technical rewrite to treat certain under‑21 alcohol possession and low‑BAC driving incidents as civil violations and funnel eligible youth into the Youth Substance Awareness/Safety (YSAS) diversion program, with reporting and outcome‑measure requirements for the Attorney General’s Office.","taxTitle","Judiciary, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",47267,"location","Vermont","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6094417,"Witnesses urge statutory clarity for standby guardianships to keep children with trusted caregivers during immigration enforcement",1641,2199320,3840900,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844363-0f1f8486ee84974b235b03f2663cd896&start=2199&end=3840","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844363-0f1f8486ee84974b235b03f2663cd896/thumbnail_2199320.jpg","/articles/6094417/Vermont/Witnesses-urge-statutory-clarity-for-standby-guardianships-to-keep-children-with-trusted-caregivers-during-immigration-enforcement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094417-0fb0b5761572c2fc262dc9c570bfa343/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138499&Signature=dP8kauUBVg0ZVIHitJO8Kp1DIOTJmYfU07DR3plBPpSuLZX7xHILtk-cFkJXtFwy8ETlf0wmllPRuyehCJErY~qknCQBJRXYE1KKDH3IVmVTK2jmWZOwpdyRxNy4YsJPINoTiYhY3LKohobeWLHZXPdxKbqJBQ5Sla~F8seA-lcH0Gbh5-azQ1k4ima7NgVubEoK5av~wvLQcTF4CgQtzjWluczWoAt7Ep7nMxnXREBu8bHO8zCkVW0~atUPPPnSBwc0L6Y-NnIRXA3J85DS7x2YgxAfHoOAJPio033PmepWz3K-RLXR4MpEL3FHBYvmFi-agR8B8N-j5dffoSjHQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jill Martin Diaz, executive director of the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project, and Barb McCrine, a staff attorney with Vermont Legal Aid, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 1 that state statutes clarifying courts’ authority to accept standby‑guardianship filings would prevent unnecessary foster‑care placements when parents are detained by immigration authorities.

Martin Diaz said standby guardianship statutes exist in many states and enable families to plan in advance so that, if a parent is detained or otherwise unable to care for a child, a designated caregiver can file a guardianship or implement a previously prepared plan. “This bill allows families to plan proactively now in times of calm,” Martin Diaz said, describing school personnel and neighbors who often call legal services after a parent is detained.

Barb McCrine described Vermont Legal Aid’s clinics and volunteer network created to prepare standby guardianship paperwork in advance. She said the program has trained 25 volunteer attorneys, has 20 active attorneys statewide, has held three clinics and assisted 35 families, with 23 families currently on a waiting list. McCrine told the committee that judges sometimes disagree about whether paperwork completed months earlier can be filed later when a parent is detained, and that a clear statutory path would reassure courts and protect children from long institutional placements.

Both witnesses discussed a proposed definition in the draft bill of “adverse immigration action” and recommended an expansive but clear definition so judges understand the scope of the statute and are comfortable exercising jurisdiction. Martin Diaz noted that immigration enforcement takes many forms — detention by DHS, DOJ criminal prosecutions, denials of entry — and that courts have been reluctant to make findings that could touch on federal immigration matters without explicit legislative direction. She said the committee’s proposed language aligns with options other states have used to clarify jurisdiction for standby guardianship statutes.

Committee members asked technical questions about specific draft language and operational details. McCrine identified three suggested edits she had provided in written testimony: remove or revise a custodial‑parent definition that can be unworkable for some families, delete an unnecessary conditional consent sentence, and change phrasing to state that parents “are creating” rather than “intend to create” a standby guardianship when filling out the clinic form. She said the clinics retain completed paperwork so it can be filed promptly if a parent is detained.

Witnesses and legal advocates described the broader goal as avoiding the trauma and disruption to children that can follow DCF custody: “The least‑restrictive setting is always going to be the most appropriate and least harmful for kids in care,” Martin Diaz said, noting cultural and linguistic continuity concerns when children of color or children with limited English are placed outside their communities.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing; witnesses offered to provide recommended edits and to return with technical clarifications as the bill is revised.

Standby‑guardianship provision in combined H.98/S.95: testimony and technical edits discussed; no formal vote recorded.","Legal-service providers told the Senate Judiciary Committee that codifying state court jurisdiction over standby guardianship would help mixed‑status families plan for temporary care and reduce placements into DCF custody after immigration enforcement actions.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6094422,"Committee hears testimony backing bill to add confirmatory adoptions for families formed by assisted reproduction",382,18625,401550,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2844363-0f1f8486ee84974b235b03f2663cd896&start=18&end=401","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2844363-0f1f8486ee84974b235b03f2663cd896/thumbnail_18625.jpg","/articles/6094422/Vermont/Committee-hears-testimony-backing-bill-to-add-confirmatory-adoptions-for-families-formed-by-assisted-reproduction","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6094422-c9b32df3a435ab2f6fe61cd6ba14fc3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138499&Signature=L7N4j9tFIe9NvlFJHMA6qkjLcor8pb3Q7-st0oFi1vGgsyPZDljUvHZFyVgfStsvyGdO-AZqljTl8RSflHUZ95Rh5bG4Wm6NHP7laCKoAn892bCS5lKyF3X2E5IMcFcdho22Tu3MW3gF7UVeQEmw98ZNs~uxS5IRmo-A9DcxDGDZQVnllr4C7rttGTZrlRF-vZSxLvpegr4oLzuL9hJjEQejmpiTB61IfnaNCYVZbrk-TM1f08zQOAA9RMGsYlPKHtapWL03HizqvZ8-4ZcC6EVayBJeD6Z~4qVrrYm0jMhAO8b3~BZJzR6Z95yHmRALRAKi8XYM0UNC~DNnUZCScg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, and Meg York, director of LGBTQ+ Family Law and Policy at Family Equality, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 1 that H.98 would create a narrow “confirmatory adoption” route for families already recognized as parents under Vermont law.

The witnesses said the change would let parents who are already legally parents under the Vermont Parentage Act obtain an adoption decree more quickly and with fewer procedural burdens, offering families additional protection if they travel or move to states that treat parentage differently.

Crozier and York said the bill is limited in scope and is intended only for people who already hold legal parentage in Vermont and who want an adoption decree for added security. “This bill is simple but incredibly important,” Crozier said, describing the change as “a continuation of Vermont’s work to increase stability and security for children.” York said the addition would give families “an option to secure what they know to be true, what our state recognizes to be true,” and noted adoption has long been a familiar, portable tool for protecting parent–child relationships.

Proponents described three practical benefits: (1) portability and recognition in other jurisdictions, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in V.L. v. E.L. as precedent for treating adoption decrees as entitled to full faith and credit; (2) reduced time and expense for families compared with the existing step‑parent/partner adoption pathway, which witnesses said was not designed for assisted‑reproduction families; and (3) judicial economy, because probate judges could approve a streamlined petition without the full home‑study and notice steps that traditional adoptions require, while retaining discretion in contested cases.

Committee members asked about specific process details. Senator Folks asked whether the bill would affect costs. York said the bill would eliminate some costs now associated with the longer adoption route—fingerprinting, background checks and other procedural steps—and noted Vermont’s existing filing‑fee waiver could make the streamlined process low or no cost for qualifying families. Committee members also questioned the requirement for a missing‑children registry check; Crozier described her own experience that the check delayed an adoption in another state and said the register can be waived in appropriate confirmatory cases while judges retain discretion to require additional inquiry in particular cases.

Witnesses cited a practical rationale: advocates said some states have stripped parentage from non‑genetic parents in litigation following interstate moves or separation, and a confirmatory adoption decree reduces that litigation risk. They noted nine states had adopted a similar statutory confirmatory‑adoption provision and that New Mexico had recently enacted such legislation.

The testimony closed with proponents saying the bill is narrow and intended for families already recognized under Vermont law; they emphasized that the courts would retain discretion to require additional evidence where appropriate.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing; testimony and questioning were the recorded actions.

H.98 (confirmatory adoption): testimony and committee questions are on the record; no formal vote recorded.

Polly Crozier, director of family advocacy, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders; Meg York, director of LGBTQ+ Family Law and Policy, Family Equality.

The committee may request additional drafting or process detail in future sessions.","Witnesses told the Senate Judiciary Committee that H.98 would add a confirmatory-adoption option to Vermont law to streamline adoption decrees for parents already recognized under the Vermont Parentage Act, citing portability, reduced litigation and reduced cost and delay for families formed through assisted reproduction.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

AG office and advocates back H.105 to expand youth substance‑safety diversion and add 0.02 impaired‑driving referrals to program

Witnesses urge statutory clarity for standby guardianships to keep children with trusted caregivers during immigration enforcement

Committee hears testimony backing bill to add confirmatory adoptions for families formed by assisted reproduction