[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6241998,"mediaKeyId","3251497-c3d43a44a2cdc92c8cd6ff55af0d41d2","parentId",3251497,"title","Judiciary committee narrowly backs H98 in straw poll after heated debate over standby guardianship and ICE policy","audioSeconds",877,"startMs",1768000,"endMs",2645000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3251497-c3d43a44a2cdc92c8cd6ff55af0d41d2&start=1768&end=2645","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3251497-c3d43a44a2cdc92c8cd6ff55af0d41d2/thumbnail_1768000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6241998/Vermont/Judiciary-committee-narrowly-backs-H98-in-straw-poll-after-heated-debate-over-standby-guardianship-and-ICE-policy","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6241998-03fa0b7f95bcb925a85c20413cf0a281/orig.mp4?Expires=1773706769&Signature=L16i0dsrr4ZTHpIP2whQkToof8Ztz~8WS7R30lMYB073XYYEJ4opGGCfcFplVAEgzAQlhJ8j5RtltYqcoKpWeDBPy0ifdzjQsj5s1hKbjQmQKycyuNPXS7N1FX5xwHhq5EIL-5qIzNLH3MRdjnWIVWWpE36BbwUWGnCoftTL~4O85MOWtvomqr397VYCiaTfUWUuUqlbwncNqamu6RJr4fLJbAk~-90kr5dhJhr4m-JR5xwYE89ww0kmTM-MSQczm46PmrvV4N4bXFKrwosgWNuMiXMwPDlj4vm5NqNf7D17WR2zA94vc2ObgQZecZhkP8KQSHmybNAzE7zNRYJQPg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-09T17:02:33Z","article","The Vermont House Judiciary Committee on May 9 conducted a straw poll and recorded a 5‑3 split in favor of concurring with H98, a bill that would add confirmatory adoption provisions and create a consensual standby guardianship mechanism intended to give families a prearranged option if a parent is detained or otherwise unavailable.

Committee members debated the provision at length. One member argued the bill gives parents control and a way to explain a contingency plan to children and said, “The reason that I think this bill is important is not because I think ICE is not doing their job. I think parents having control over where their kids go…is preferable than having a government agency deciding where somebody’s children should go.”

Opponents said the measure was preemptive and questioned whether it was necessary because federal immigration authorities — referred to repeatedly during the discussion — already prioritize family placements. One member said the state should not legislate a solution to a problem that, in their view, had not yet materialized: “We already have a system that will take the kid when it gets to the point that somebody has to watch it.”

Members on both sides raised child‑safety concerns. Supporters emphasized that standby guardianship could reduce trauma by allowing parents to name a trusted adult and discuss the plan with their children in advance. Opponents said the bill could be “weaponized” or used opportunistically and raised trafficking and vetting concerns; committee members suggested DCF checks or other safeguards if the legislation moves forward.

The committee treated the poll as advisory. The chair said the result (5‑3) would be shared with absent colleagues and that members would be contacted before floor action. The bill was placed on the calendar for potential floor consideration on Tuesday; members said they may take up amendments or seek compromises before then.

The debate included references to ICE policy during discussion but no testimony from federal officials. Several committee members urged colleagues to read federal policy materials before concluding the bill’s necessity. The committee did not adopt or pass the bill that day; the straw poll will inform whether and how members proceed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary - 2025-05-09 - 1:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","In a lengthy May 9 debate, the House Judiciary Committee took a straw poll (5‑3) to concur with H98, a bill that includes confirmatory adoption and consented standby guardianship provisions; members split over whether the measure is necessary given ICE practices and whether it exposes children to trafficking risk.","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},6242004,"Committee reviews S109 edits: task force scope narrowed, sealed‑record use loosened for criminal justice agencies",404,714000,1118000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3251497-c3d43a44a2cdc92c8cd6ff55af0d41d2&start=714&end=1118","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3251497-c3d43a44a2cdc92c8cd6ff55af0d41d2/thumbnail_714000.jpg","/articles/6242004/Vermont/Committee-reviews-S109-edits-task-force-scope-narrowed-sealedrecord-use-loosened-for-criminal-justice-agencies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6242004-43b605ddec2bd8bd269607c5bdab3be4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773706769&Signature=AvZuX-f8-CBCaPTxUa4K1Vyewh8Fd4DfAPVZ~86Gk1ru24DrQhVkTQPhTmlJDzDq~HSba6fBpPWJHvn7jR3DnCzidg55l1ZszQiKujVaHSedXroR2rqK00~FMB098Uet4l7WT5cstCzv1oDP5ofgRj5nturnuHefaqG9VD-0YPGH1G60kTLd9ywXW-OnmvZMBHbbj2ZgLP~qU9DTW14l69j7jgqmjlkR9yZuvjT8YX09AHseFkiOziq2VTdbkaJfc77rgtN2-gjzoCJruKQZhgFbGlQnqbJOUKdh7PIeoAhx7Q~D3XtvpnhzEqAU7MQDxr2OC0GjkCduIxv9AAIuwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council told the House Judiciary Committee on May 9 that editorial and substantive edits to the S109 amendment were complete and described several substantive changes affecting task force scope and sealed records.

Fitzpatrick said the amendment removes “relief from abuse orders” from the list of issues a judicial representation task force will study; the task force will now focus on “improved legal representation for children and families who are involved in judicial or administrative proceedings concerning CHINS or substantiations of abuse or neglect.”

On sealed records and criminal‑justice use, Fitzpatrick said the draft eliminates the earlier requirement that an entity file a petition for access and instead establishes a process for courts to consider whether a sealed record may be used in open court or public filing. He said the change permits appropriate use of sealed information by criminal‑justice agencies and clarifies discovery obligations so defense counsel may also use documents where permitted.

The amendment also changes current law language about deferred sentences: where the law previously said a criminal record is expunged after successful completion of a deferred sentence, the draft now treats those records as sealed.

Committee members debated remaining items on the bill. Some members expressed concern about the set of property felonies listed for sealing and whether certain offenses should remain excluded or be moved to a 10‑year window. One member said defense counsel access parity addressed a core concern raised by prosecutors earlier in the process.

Fitzpatrick said the amendment will appear on the calendar for additional committee review and that, if needed, committee of conference procedures could address remaining differences with the Senate. The committee did not vote on the amendment that day; members agreed to take it up again ahead of floor action.

Committee members indicated they would consider amendments before floor action and that there is a likely committee of conference step if the Senate objects to the House changes.","Legislative counsel reviewed a second draft of an amendment to S109 that removes relief from abuse orders from a task force’s study list and alters use and access rules for sealed records, including permitting certain uses by criminal justice actors and changing outcomes for deferred sentences.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6242008,"DCF tells Judiciary panel it will remove child‑support offset from TPR considerations",494,100000,594000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3251497-c3d43a44a2cdc92c8cd6ff55af0d41d2&start=100&end=594","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3251497-c3d43a44a2cdc92c8cd6ff55af0d41d2/thumbnail_100000.jpg","/articles/6242008/Vermont/DCF-tells-Judiciary-panel-it-will-remove-childsupport-offset-from-TPR-considerations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6242008-8004ac059dd9872de1f0c15b8047de96/orig.mp4?Expires=1773706769&Signature=TvGag-asnBo69Tk2sQ7zS9STmC-oLrRRITKy47Z6iXkjyadvUaFeFbcAqaWJhxSpRhpuRTBSIfa0bF3CUsYE-hUVYYpTPuLJfN909QBwtJ2Sota4DD8dy5TANpviPRD-Ki7EnylEP3rvYxxv3ybHYHSmrz7zlfWeuic0O-oN7w3wK6PGumIeOAuVvOZP4B8ZGwd8oJmu7tuCAfbOhgN9RWD4FaZ6R3-wgj6VjQCgOtOe5wMJyoUzDcBDP7X9SGeK4x3eLEzjO3Yo56Owfui~i1WHatf8x8ohLCzqOKoFsQu2VGRjUPox9Knp0euHKY0jCMk0Im1CSK92shu6YwcbIw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Heather McClain, revenue enhancement director for the Department for Children and Families Family Services division, told the Vermont House Judiciary Committee on May 9 that the department no longer pursues child support to offset foster‑care costs and wants the termination‑of‑parental‑rights (TPR) statute revised to match that practice.

“We don’t do that practice anymore. We believe it’s not in the best interest of children and families to pursue child support in those situations,” McClain said, adding that DCF is asking the statute to be “completely divorced from the TPR matter at hand.”

The clarification follows committee members’ questions about earlier amendment language to H109 that mentioned “failure to pay child support.” McClain and other committee members said they want language that makes clear the department will not bring payment or nonpayment of child support to bear in TPR filings when the payments are those remitted to DCF to offset foster‑care costs.

A committee member asked why the statute could not simply read, “the court shall not consider whether the parent made payments to the Department of Children and Families.” McClain said the department will provide proposed language similar to that formulation and emphasized the change is intended to apply to the Family Services division, not to the Office of Child Support within DCF.

Committee members debated whether the amendment should bar courts from considering evidence of payments introduced by any party or only prevent DCF from presenting payments as a basis for TPR. One committee member asked whether the new draft should remove reference to the court so that any party‑offered evidence of child‑support payments could still be considered by the court; McClain said DCF’s position is that the department will not include such payments in its documentation supporting a TPR petition.

The committee did not take a final vote on the amendment. The group directed DCF to circulate proposed replacement language to committee staff. Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council said he would receive the proposed language for distribution and that the committee will take up the item again when that text is available.

The exchange made two narrow but important points: DCF stated a policy change in practice (no longer pursuing child support to offset foster‑care costs) and is seeking statutory alignment for TPR and adoption proceedings; and the committee is weighing whether statutory text should limit only department filings or also restrain courts’ consideration of any such evidence.

Committee members said they expect revised language from DCF for review before the bill moves to the floor.","At a May 9 House Judiciary Committee meeting, Heather McClain of the Department for Children and Families said DCF no longer pursues child support to offset foster‑care costs and will seek statutory language to ensure termination‑of‑parental‑rights proceedings do not consider such payments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judiciary committee narrowly backs H98 in straw poll after heated debate over standby guardianship and ICE policy

Committee reviews S109 edits: task force scope narrowed, sealed‑record use loosened for criminal justice agencies

DCF tells Judiciary panel it will remove child‑support offset from TPR considerations