House Judiciary Committee hears testimony on H.98 to allow standby guardianship when parents face immigration actions

The House Judiciary Committee on May 8 heard testimony on H.98, legislation to authorize "standby" guardianships allowing a named guardian to assume care for a child if a custodial parent is subject to an adverse immigration action. Testimony came from the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF), immigration legal advocates and a resident who described arranging a standby guardianship for an asylum-seeking family.

The bill is intended to provide a short-term, court‑sanctioned alternative to placing children in state custody when a custodial parent is detained or otherwise temporarily unable to care for a child. "We are in support of H.98 in terms of the standby guardianship," Erica Radke, deputy commissioner of the Family Services Division at the Vermont Department for Children and Families, told the committee.

Committee members and witnesses said the measure aims to reduce unnecessary involvement of DCF when a vetted guardian is available, while also clarifying probate and family court authority to make decisions for a child’s care regardless of immigration status. "We are seeing an immediate need for clarity for judges about the jurisdiction that they already have to make decisions about the well‑being of children," said Jill Martin Diaz, an immigration attorney and executive director of the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project.

State child‑welfare officials described operational limits and procedures. Diane Jabber, director of DCF’s Centralized Intake and Emergency Services unit, said her unit — which would be on the front line of any placements — has limited after‑hours emergency foster homes and that a sudden influx of children into custody would be challenging. "If we had a sudden influx of children coming into custody, it would be a challenge after hours," Jabber said. Radke added that when background checks and safety assessments clear a proposed guardian, DCF would prefer not to assume custody: "We don't believe that DCF should be involved in those cases."

Witnesses and committee members pressed on several practical points the bill does not change. Committee members asked whether DCF could place a child directly with a guardian without the guardian becoming a licensed foster parent; officials said that once children enter state custody they must be placed in licensed foster homes or approved residential facilities unless a lawful guardianship or other arrangement is in place. Jabber estimated the licensing and home‑study process could take "a few weeks" but cautioned time can be longer when background‑check backlogs exist.

Testimony also addressed cross‑border reunification. DCF officials said Vermont has not previously conducted international home studies and is negotiating a contract with an organization to perform overseas home studies when a custodial parent is outside the United States. Radke and Jabber said that until such arrangements are in place, reunifying a child in state custody with a parent who has been deported or otherwise is abroad would be complicated and could prolong the child's time in custody.

Legal advocates urged that the bill be written to give probate and family court judges clear authority to issue temporary guardianship orders when an adverse immigration action occurs. Diaz cited Vermont case law and past legislative clarifications that support court jurisdiction over care and custody decisions regardless of immigration status, including the Vermont Supreme Court decision Kotoko v. Salamo and subsequent state statutory changes. She also noted federal immigration mechanisms — including Special Immigrant Juvenile status — that can provide long‑term immigration relief for some children who cannot reunify with parents.

A resident who had helped arrange a standby guardianship described the emotional relief such a process can provide. "They drove over to the home of the standby guardian with their 6‑year‑old daughter. They told her, in effect, ‘we plan to be back this afternoon, but if we don't ever see you again, you know this person. She will be your mom,'" said Steve Crofter. He said the family viewed the standby guardianship as ‘‘less terrible’’ than risking the child entering an unfamiliar state system.

Committee members asked DCF and legal advocates to return with follow‑up information, including how an international home‑study contract would function and whether other states have operational models the committee could study. Radke said the agency would seek resources as needed and that after‑hours placements would be most difficult to scale quickly.

No formal committee vote was taken during the hearing; the chair put H.98 on the committee's notice calendar and indicated the bill would be on the House floor the following day. Committee members said they expect to revisit implementation questions — including how the proposed standby guardianship interacts with existing licensing rules and any international home‑study process — in subsequent sessions or follow‑up hearings.

If enacted, H.98 would create a pathway intended to allow related or trusted adults to provide continuity of care for children while limiting unnecessary institutionalization and DCF custody when safety checks pass and a probate court has approved guardianship.