Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the H222 Domestic Violence Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amendment to H.222 would make failure to finish court‑ordered domestic violence program potentially criminal, committee hears
Summary
Michelle Trout of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8 that an amendment to H.222 would remove language shielding failure to complete an approved domestic violence accountability program from criminal prosecution, making it enforceable like other conditions of a final Title 15 protection order.
Michelle Trout of the Office of Legislative Counsel explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8 that an amendment to H.222 would change how courts may treat a defendant’s failure to complete court‑ordered domestic violence accountability programming.
Trout said the proposal applies to final Title 15 family abuse protection orders (not ex parte emergency orders). The house version had language specifying that failure to complete an approved domestic violence accountability program “shall not be considered a crime and is not a violation of section 10 30, but could subject the defendant to civil contempt proceedings.” The amendment before the Senate removes that language, which would make the programming requirement enforceable like other conditions of a final protection order and therefore potentially prosecutable under the criminal statute cited in testimony (13 V.S.A. §1030 was discussed in committee testimony as the misdemeanor for violating civil protection orders).
“Your proposal in this amendment is just striking that language. So the default would be that it would just be like any other condition of the final order, and a state's attorney could choose to charge under 1030 a violation,” Trout said during the hearing.
Committee members voiced differing views on consistency and enforcement. One senator said he preferred uniform treatment: if a court order condition can lead to criminal penalty in other cases, it should be consistent for programming. Another committee member noted concerns that programming can be ongoing and “it can take up to 26 weeks,” and questioned how participation would be monitored; Trout replied the Council on Domestic Violence has criteria for when a participant is considered to be actively participating versus having dropped out.
No final committee vote was taken on the amendment at the May 8 meeting. Committee leaders said they would take a straw poll when the full committee is present, and the house will decide whether to accept any Senate changes. Multiple speakers agreed the issue should not block the bill’s progress; the committee planned to reconvene and consider the amendment formally at the next full committee meeting.
Discussion points: whether failure to complete a court‑ordered domestic violence accountability program should be a criminal violation (like other order conditions) or only subject to civil contempt; monitoring and definition of “participation” in programs; potential inconsistency across types of protection orders.
Direction assigned (not a formal vote): committee will take further consideration, including a straw poll with a full committee; staff and members will confer with the Council on Domestic Violence and House sponsors before a final vote.
Decisions: none formalized at the hearing; the committee did not adopt or reject the amendment on May 8.
