[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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",[32,75],{"_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":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6247969,"mediaKeyId","3212416-234fc1721b312905761697261a32027d","parentId",3212416,"title","House amendment to H.98 would add expedited ‘standby’ guardianships for children when parents face immigration action","audioSeconds",3942,"startMs",3572000,"endMs",7514000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3212416-234fc1721b312905761697261a32027d&start=3572&end=7514","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3212416-234fc1721b312905761697261a32027d/thumbnail_3572000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6247969/Vermont/House-amendment-to-H98-would-add-expedited-standby-guardianships-for-children-when-parents-face-immigration-action","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247969-e8c274e297e431e846518add9784d0da/orig.mp4?Expires=1775217599&Signature=R1K8wepOjgtTLkKKltTZPmvzrwxsu9su2mJhk2E4L1jWHZM4hVpt3vvuEQ3FeGpKSNL9i5vqWOKfyn5atbpEWk6rJYThMEVuWkZN-CCbtSn807DJB6NWTTqwMY7zEgQQy7MBgGoUuGihEbkP6gzZRNNgrvTaN33BuJZ9p49t~oB47zxbNZQwoiCLFyyDLxEGduxtlCT4u~T3ARQQ1xp0FFhgo4ZxQ7mYR5Yu6X~MFPsoWT9d58EHELneS5fjuu57p0m20cGH7X9wLyoDDmWdj46mz~9Y4mKdOTkMqrgEkQ-ZDd4Knp-TLM3zmZ0G5ZK1FLlDbIRAnUvOWlY8S5CSig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-08T03:20:57Z","article","Eric Fitzpatrick, an attorney in the Office of Legislative Counsel, told the House committee on May 7 that the Senate amendment to H.98 adds a new expedited probate process—a “standby guardianship”—to allow a chosen guardian to assume care for a child when a custodial parent is rendered unavailable because of an adverse immigration action.

The proposal adds a narrowly defined circumstance to the existing statutory list of reasons the probate division may approve a consensual guardianship and creates filing, consent, hearing and termination rules for the standby guardianship.

Fitzpatrick summarized the change and its purpose: “This adds one more to that list … when a custodial parent of the child is unavailable to care for the child because the parent has been subject to an adverse immigration action,” he said. The amendment, originally Senate S.95, was attached to H.98 and adds a new statutory section describing the standby guardianship procedure.

Why it matters: Committee members and staff said the amendment is intended to avoid children entering state custody when their custodial parent is taken into federal immigration custody; the standby guardianship lets parents, a proposed guardian and counsel file a consensual guardianship agreement in advance and, if a parent is detained, have an expedited probate process to place the child with the chosen guardian instead of transferring the child to Department for Children and Families (DCF).

Key provisions: The amendment defines “adverse immigration action” by listing several triggering events (examples include arrest or detention by federal law enforcement for alleged immigration violations, removal proceedings, charging or indictment on immigration-related offenses and other federal actions that render the parent unavailable). If the adverse immigration action renders the custodial parent unavailable to care for the child, the statute allows a petition for a standby guardianship.

The petition must be accompanied by a consent form signed by the custodial parent that the court administrator will standardize. The bill permits an emergency ex parte filing in which the court may waive standard notice and hearing requirements if the court finds (a) the child’s best interest requires immediate action and (b) the custodial parent has been detained and cannot be reached despite reasonable efforts. If the court grants an emergency petition, it must schedule a hearing “as soon as practicable” and not later than three business days after the petition is filed; absent emergency circumstances, the statute calls for the court to schedule a hearing within 14 days and to issue an order establishing the guardianship within 45 days unless extended for cause.

Burden of proof and findings: The court may grant a standby‑guardianship petition only after finding by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the adverse immigration action rendered the custodial parent unavailable, (2) the custodial parent knowingly and voluntarily consented, (3) reasonable efforts were made to notify the parent, (4) the proposed guardian is suitable, and (5) the guardianship is in the child’s best interest. The statute creates a rebuttable presumption that, if those conditions are met and the parent is represented by counsel, the guardianship is in the child’s best interest.

Termination rules: The amendment presumes termination if the custodial parent is released from custody and reunites with the child. A parent may file a motion to terminate at any time and the court must grant it unless the guardian files a motion to continue the guardianship within 30 days; if the guardian moves to continue the matter becomes an adversarial, involuntary guardianship proceeding under existing law.

Questions and concerns raised: Committee members pressed the drafter on multiple points. Lawmakers asked whether the standby guardianship could be used where no family member exists who could serve as the guardian, how courts will verify parental consent if the parent is detained or abroad, what “adverse immigration action” means in practice and whether the statute could be perceived as interfering with federal immigration enforcement. Fitzpatrick repeatedly noted that the provision focuses only on whether an adverse immigration action occurred and whether the resulting unavailability of the parent is shown; the bill does not change federal immigration procedures.

Several members asked about due process and timing given court backlogs; Fitzpatrick noted the draft includes both emergency (three‑day) and non‑emergency (14‑day) timelines and that judges and practitioners would determine how they operate in practice. Members also asked for clarification on whether consent may be given by proxy (the draft requires the custodial parent’s own signature on the consent form), whether a nonfamily guardian may be appointed (the bill does not require familial relationship), and how the probate court will evaluate guardian suitability.

Administrative details: The bill tasks the court administrator with producing the consent form and permits remote participation by detained parents. The text relaxes evidentiary formality in certain filings where required by geography or other practical constraints and cross‑references existing probate rules (including Rule 4 for service) and standards for hearings in guardianship proceedings.

Ending: Fitzpatrick said the confirmatory adoption portion of H.98 (Section 1 of the bill) is unchanged from the House version and that the standby guardianship section would take effect on passage. Committee members said they would follow up with practitioners and the judiciary for practical details about implementation, remote participation, and whether additional statutory clarifications or safeguards are needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary - 2025-05-07 - 9:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Legislative counsel walked the committee through a Senate amendment to H.98 that creates a standby consensual guardianship when a custodial parent is rendered unavailable by an adverse immigration action; the measure adds petition, consent‑form, emergency and termination procedures and prompted questions about due process and federal interaction.","taxTitle","Judiciary, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35152,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6247970,"Vermont state archivist warns sealing, expungement law will strain legacy records and technology",3520,0,3520000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3212416-234fc1721b312905761697261a32027d&start=0&end=3520","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3212416-234fc1721b312905761697261a32027d/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6247970/Vermont/Vermont-state-archivist-warns-sealing-expungement-law-will-strain-legacy-records-and-technology","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6247970-95d447b21a900ce6d183d59d29681f2c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775217599&Signature=KPMUrF9oUnN9jiQ7g2h4y-qJBBRGnf0JrfIUC~sWVn3xa~Z5Zm2S~TG~yIFAW-WFaTOw0l0oLFBm2KFNpqcSRsZ0pfPEOqMeGLucsO86ke5b3J-w8mkLPt~kGrA~aWzR7hUMieaOTS26upjBxmfHlyE86tlNhGLjT9~Q-2idvCO1SNQDYEVjVjc6Nc7NEKClMBMi8Y92ANSUFEF0HyTM1Zxr~7vb3ynRm8hZHzQW9eoxrLQ6psf73yMwtdATaNfDXrrnk7hqa9ux5Ikz0lr6B12pNLaNgaqix86AZER-G5Kw5M5NUtkCbTI6P3z9E16W3mrpYvwCPajOhn1grSsnXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tanya Marshall, the state archivist and chief records officer for the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration (a division of the Secretary of State’s Office), told the Legislature on May 7 that sealing and expungement work under S.112 will require substantial records-management work across agencies.

Marshall said the archives can offer management guidance and functional analyses but cautioned that many records remain in legacy formats and that some technology systems lack the retention and access controls needed to implement sealing and expungement reliably.

Marshall described the archives’ role and the law that created it: “I’m Tanya Marshall. I’m the chief records officer and the state archivist and the director of the Vermont State Archives and Records Administration. We’re a division of the Secretary of State’s Office.” She said the office’s statutory program—created in Act 1 of 2003—establishes statewide records and information management and maintains record schedules that control retention, disposition and security coding.

Why it matters: Marshall told the committee that sealing (making a record inaccessible to public search) and expungement (destruction of records) are technically possible in many cases but often impractical without changes to agency processes, clearer legal definitions and better technology. She emphasized that some records are held as paper, on microfilm or as audio recordings that cannot be surgically redacted or removed without destroying larger, historically significant materials.

Most important facts: Marshall said the archives issues life‑cycle “record schedules” for agencies such as state’s attorneys and the attorney general that define when records move from active use to inactivity and when they are eligible for destruction. She said misdemeanor case files, for example, are generally scheduled for destruction six years after a case is closed and any sentence has been fully served, a period chosen to align with civil statute-of-limitations concerns. “Misdemeanors are set for destruction, right now, after the time frame … that 6 years tends to be where a lot of folks spread kind of tend to go towards the statutory limitations for civil action,” Marshall said.

Marshall outlined four management themes for the committee: (1) the statewide records and information program and how it intersects with sealing/expungement; (2) the need to consider internal controls and record schedules when drafting statutory changes; (3) the technical challenge of legacy formats (paper, microfilm, tape); and (4) the opportunity in the post‑COVID digital environment to design systems that support sealing through data controls rather than manual paper handling.

Technology and staffing: Marshall told lawmakers that many agencies buy or adopt systems without early coordination with records professionals: “one of the boxes that people should check is, have you checked with the state archivist?” She said the executive branch has roughly 400 FTEs focused on technology across agencies but only a small number of staff focused on records-management architecture and that gaps arise when systems are implemented without records requirements. She described cases where a seemingly simple procedure for sealing turned into substantial additional workload for staff because systems and file formats did not match the legal intent.

Legacy records and limits on expungement: Marshall said some records cannot be fully removed—court docket books, microfilm and audio that contain multiple matters cannot always be “spliced” to remove a single entry. She said archivists sometimes see physical cutouts in docket books where earlier efforts attempted expungement. For archival material with statewide historical significance, the archives will preserve records even when individual access is limited by statute: “we’re not gonna pull out pages,” she said, noting the state archives uses long-term access benchmarks similar to HIPAA for sensitive, long‑term restrictions.

Operational proposals and requests: Marshall recommended several operational approaches the committee could consider: require earlier involvement of records managers and IT practitioners when agencies plan new systems or procure software; authorize the archives or court administrator to prepare standard consent/notice forms and process diagrams for sealing petitions; and pilot a single point of entry—such as the Vermont Criminal Information Center or an equivalent—so public searches could return a single “no record found” response when appropriate. She offered to produce functional analyses for the committee and to provide the record schedules that intersect with the proposed statute.

Concerns raised: Committee members asked how sealing or expungement would interact with retention rules that already schedule many misdemeanor files for destruction after six years, how the archives would confirm a parent or petitioner’s identity if records were remote, and whether a single point of entry could be the place where courts and agencies send sealing orders. Marshall acknowledged the complexity and said archives can assist but cannot unilaterally impose changes: “we don’t kind of, like, force ourselves into any situation, but we love it when people do reach out because we love the problem solved around that.”

What’s next: Marshall said the archives will send the committee the record schedules that intersect with the bill (state’s attorneys, attorney general and courts) and offered to provide functional analyses of statutory drafts. Lawmakers and staff asked for sample walk-throughs of a misdemeanor case from investigation, through prosecution and disposition, to show triggers for retention, sealing eligibility and the practical limits of destruction.

Ending: The archives’ presentation underscored that sealing and expungement are legal and management problems as much as they are technical ones. Marshall urged lawmakers to account for legacy formats, to involve records and IT specialists early in the drafting and implementation process, and to consider centralized points of public access to reduce the risk of inconsistent responses across agencies.","State Archivist Tanya Marshall told a legislative committee that sealing and expungement under S.112/H.112 intersects with decades of legacy records, uneven record schedules and limited technology; she urged clearer procedures, earlier systems review and a single point-of-entry for public record checks.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House amendment to H.98 would add expedited ‘standby’ guardianships for children when parents face immigration action

Vermont state archivist warns sealing, expungement law will strain legacy records and technology