Office of Defender General opposes H.109 task force provision, Defends CHINS representation and Title IV‑E plans

A staff member for the Office of the Defender General told the Vermont Legislature's Judiciary Committee on May 21 that the office opposes a provision in H.109 to create a “child and parent legal representation task force,” saying the provision is based on incorrect statements about how the office provides counsel in CHINS (children in need of supervision) cases.

The staff member told the panel the office’s opposition is “sort of a strange position for us because, we oppose this provision, and that might seem odd because it's merely a task force study provision,” then spent the hearing explaining why the office views the provision as unnecessary and potentially harmful.

The dispute centers on representation in CHINS cases, where the state intervenes in family life for allegations such as abuse, neglect, abandonment, truancy or a child beyond parental control. The staff member described Vermont’s system as one in which children and parents are represented — sometimes by multiple attorneys when interests diverge — through a mix of staff attorneys and contracted conflict attorneys.

The staff member disputed several claims the House heard in earlier testimony about contracted attorneys. Among the rebuttals: “our staff attorneys are paid exactly like our criminal attorneys” and contract payments are set on a flat-rate per‑lawyer-equivalent-caseload (LEC) basis calculated from recent historical caseload data. The presenter said the office currently uses a target per‑LEC rate (discussed in the hearing as $185,000) and that, depending on the calculation and contract mix, the effective per‑LEC figure for juvenile contracts can be higher (the presentation cited about $227,000 per LEC for child‑welfare contracts in an average calculation).

The office also described how it measures workload. Rather than counting pending cases, it counts “added case events” — separate phases or hearings within a single underlying CHINS matter — and uses a 50 added‑case-events-per‑year benchmark modeled on felony criminal caseload standards. The staff member argued that measuring added case events better reflects variability in county practice and case complexity across Vermont.

On resources, the presenter said CHINS attorneys have access to the same expert and investigative services as criminal defenders. “Our CHINS attorneys have access to all the same resources that our criminal attorneys have access to,” the staff member said, adding that experts and investigators are approved via an expert services request form and that the office pays for those services. The office also described a family support worker program of roughly two dozen workers statewide — retired DCF caseworkers, licensed social workers and others — funded in part with about $150,000 that the office supplements, and used to help clients obtain housing, assessments and connect with community services.

The staff member addressed supervision, training and evaluation. They said routine complaint investigations, judicial evaluations and peer review are used to evaluate contracted attorneys; judicial evaluations are collected and aggregated for training and contract decisions on a four‑year cycle. Training for staff and contract attorneys is mandatory (provided in multi‑day summer sessions and ongoing biweekly online sessions), and the office has increased its evaluation and training granularity in recent years.

A separate but related issue discussed at the hearing was federal Title IV‑E funding the office has sought to expand representation and interdisciplinary work. The staff member said the office began work in 2018 to use Title IV‑E funds (federal funds administered by the Children’s Bureau) for pre‑petition representation, embedded social workers, landlord/immigration/education supports and similar services. That effort stalled, the presenter said, because Vermont’s Department for Children and Families’ (DCF) IT systems could not reliably distinguish Title IV‑E‑eligible families for federal reporting and compliance, preventing the state from drawing funds.

To address that gap, the office described negotiations with a private vendor to provide the reporting and compliance infrastructure needed to draw Title IV‑E reimbursements. The presenter said the vendor — which the office expects to assume compliance liability to satisfy federal requirements — proposed a contract that the office is reviewing; the contract will need review by the attorney general’s office before execution. The staff member described the vendor arrangement as designed so the vendor would not charge significant upfront fees and would be paid from reimbursements once the federal funds are drawn down.

The staff member said the added language in H.109, rolled up from earlier bills H.398 and H.193, grew out of House testimony that the presenter characterized as containing many inaccurate statements about pay, supervision, access to experts, standards and training. The presenter urged that the H.109 provision be struck and advocated for reviving the joint legislative child‑welfare oversight committee that previously met several times a year and included legislators and agency leaders. “It was a real measure of accountability for DCF, for our office, for the state's attorneys, for the attorney general's office,” the staff member said.

Committee members asked clarifying questions during the presentation about who pays for expert witnesses in private‑attorney contracts (the presenter said the office pays those costs), the feasibility of a public complaint‑oriented attorney rating system (the presenter noted equity and access concerns seen in other jurisdictions), and whether records exist about out‑of‑court support for families (the presenter said the office does track services paid for in each docket and can report on that data). The presenter also confirmed the office hopes to sign the vendor contract and begin drawing Title IV‑E funds “within the year,” subject to resolution of oversight concerns raised by the new statutory provision.

No formal action or vote was taken at the hearing on H.109 during this presentation. The office’s representative urged the Legislature to restore legislative oversight rather than create the task force provision, arguing existing reforms and a planned Title IV‑E rollout would be interrupted while potential contractors seek clarity about oversight and governance.

If enacted as currently written, the staff member said the H.109 provision could delay contracting to access federal funds and complicate an ongoing effort to expand interdisciplinary representation and pre‑petition legal help.

The Judiciary Committee will continue to consider H.109 and related bills; proponents and opponents are expected to submit written materials and appear in subsequent hearings.