Witnesses tell Senate Judiciary they support H.2’s raise-the-age changes but worry DCF lacks resources for 19‑year‑olds

March 20 — Senate Judiciary heard testimony supporting H.2, the bill to expand Vermont’s juvenile court jurisdiction, but witnesses urged caution about implementing the next phase that would bring 19‑year‑olds fully into family court.

The testimony focused on three elements of H.2: raising the minimum age of juvenile jurisdiction from 10 to 12, increasing the age for supervision in some cases (lifting certain supervision limits from 19 to 20, and extending supervision for some 18‑year‑old cases to age 21), and a proposed shift in the timeline for full implementation to 2027. No formal committee vote occurred at the hearing.

Supporters told the committee the statutory changes are appropriate policy but said operational readiness at the Department for Children and Families (DCF) is inconsistent. "We are what I would call reluctant support of stage 2," said a public defender testifying for the Defender General's Office, praising the move to raise the minimum age to 12 while warning that DCF and contracted providers currently lack the staffing and program capacity needed for 19‑year‑olds. The defender described 10‑ and 11‑year‑olds as rarely charged and typically developmentally incompetent for court participation and urged use of child‑welfare and family‑centered responses where appropriate.

Nikhil Goyle, founder of the Treat Youth Like Youth Coalition and a sociologist at the University of Vermont, told the committee the law has produced positive outcomes for young people added to family court under earlier phases and urged the legislature not to pause or repeal the remaining phase. "By failing to raise the age for these 19 year olds, we are putting them in harm's way," Goyle said, adding: "There is a human cost to pausing or repealing Raise the Age."

Speakers emphasized three practical concerns. First, the minimum‑age change (10→12) drew broad support: witnesses said 10‑ and 11‑year‑olds are uncommon in delinquency filings and typically better served through family‑welfare responses. Second, witnesses supported raising supervision ages so that juveniles who committed offenses while under 18 could remain under juvenile supervision longer, allowing treatment and services to be delivered. Third, both the Defender General's Office witness and coalition testimony described gaps in program capacity and workforce in residential and community placements, saying some contracts and facilities do not yet accommodate 19‑year‑olds.

Testimony cited consequences of placing emerging adults into adult courts and facilities: speakers referenced research and prior implementation experience showing higher recidivism and long‑term harm for youth processed in adult criminal courts. Witnesses said many cases involving 19‑year‑olds are likely to be dismissed, diverted, or result in fines, but they warned that the fringe of higher‑need youth require clinical placements and staffing that the state currently lacks.

Committee members asked for counts and operational details. The public defender witness described his own caseload experience as uncommon — saying he has represented a small number of 10‑ and 11‑year‑olds over a long career — and also expressed inconsistent numeric recollections when pressed; the record of exact statewide counts of 10‑ to 19‑year‑olds in custody or under supervision was not provided at the hearing. A committee member invited staff to obtain and provide those counts to the committee.

Witnesses described implementation failures that have slowed the rollout: pandemic‑era staffing shortages reduced licensed bed capacity in contracted programs, and programmatic decisions during facility planning removed an initially proposed 18–19‑year‑old unit from architectural plans for a new juvenile facility. Testifiers warned that repeated postponements without a concrete implementation plan risk becoming a perpetually delayed reform.

There were no formal motions or votes recorded in this hearing excerpt. The hearing record reflects debate and requests for additional operational data and plans rather than final legislative action.

Looking ahead, supporters urged the committee to keep the statutory language that raises the minimum jurisdictional age to 12 and to press agencies for a specific implementation plan and funding to ensure beds, clinical staffing, and contractual changes are in place before expanding supervision for 19‑year‑olds. Several witnesses asked the legislature to fund additional family service workers and community‑based restorative programs to reduce the risk that young people will be placed in adult facilities for lack of suitable juvenile placements.

The committee took testimony under a time limit and paused the hearing for other business; no committee decision on H.2 was recorded in the provided transcript.