Judiciary committee reviews S.109 amendment; defers decision on relief-from-abuse language for minors

Members of the Judiciary Committee reviewed a committee-strike amendment to S.109, a miscellaneous judiciary bill, that would delete duplicate "public inebriate" provisions, add new sections limiting when courts may consider child-support payment history in termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, expand a victim-notification task-force seat, and adjust several working groups. The committee did not vote and asked staff to bring the Department for Children and Families (DCF) back to explain the changes.

The amendment matters because it touches child-welfare practice, court procedure and the potential use of federal Title IV-E funding to expand legal representation for children and parents. Lawmakers and outside stakeholders debated whether to keep relief-from-abuse (RFA) petitions on behalf of minors within the child- and parent-representation task force’s charge, or to handle RFAs in a separate forum.

Patrick, attorney with the Office of Legislative Council, walked members through the draft committee-strike amendment and the bill pages. He told the committee the deletion of sections 22 and 23 removes provisions about public inebriates because identical language already passed in S.36 and is heading to the governor. Patrick also described two new sections, 25a and 25b, which restore a restriction that a court not consider a parent’s failure to make payments to DCF for support of a child as a factor when DCF seeks termination of parental rights (TPR). That restriction, Patrick said, was intended to distinguish TPR proceedings from private adoption or custody disputes where child-support history may be relevant.

The amendment contains several technical and membership changes requested by other committees. It corrects grammatical dates in an earned-time provision and adds a Department of Corrections–appointed member with technical familiarity with the VINE (Victim Information and Notification) system to a victim-notification-system task force. The bill also adds the chief justice as chair of the child-and-parent legal-representation task force and adds two membership slots: the attorney general (or designee) and the executive director of the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs (or designee).

Outside witnesses urged care in how the task force’s scope is written. Charlie Glisserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence, said the two policy areas are distinct: “We believe that combining conversations about 2 complex issues, CHINS and DCF involved families and RFAs into 1 task force is not the best approach.” He requested deleting the RFA reference or, at minimum, narrowing it so the task force addresses only RFAs filed on behalf of minors.

Amy Rose, policy director at Voices for Vermont’s Children, urged the committee to consider RFAs on behalf of minors because doing so could allow the state to examine whether Title IV-E federal funds could support legal representation for children at risk of foster care. “Without representation, children in the relief from abuse support process are rarely able to testify on their own behalf,” Rose said, describing how evidentiary rules can limit the information judges receive in RFA proceedings.

Larry (last name on the record as provided), director of the Vermont Parent Representation Center, said the center supports either approach but noted that Title IV-E funds can be used for certain RFAs affecting children and that parallel, off-session stakeholder work could proceed whether or not the RFA language remains in S.109.

Committee members asked for clearer statutory language and for DCF to explain how the proposed TPR restriction would operate in practice. One committee member instructed staff to contact DCF and arrange for agency testimony at the committee’s next meeting to clarify why the amendment bars courts from considering failure to pay DCF-owed support in TPR cases but leaves open consideration of child-support history in other proceedings.

No formal motions or votes were recorded on the amendment during the meeting. Committee staff said they would circulate a revised draft and, at a later meeting, may take a straw poll on other bills (H.98 and H.41) and review an updated S.12 draft.

The committee left the substantive question of RFAs for further discussion and asked staff to coordinate DCF and relevant stakeholders to return with clarifying language and options for the task force’s scope.