Judiciary Committee debates whether failing court-ordered domestic violence program should be a crime

The Judiciary Committee on May 7 heard competing views about a provision in the draft bill that would allow a judge to order a defendant to complete a domestic violence accountability program as part of relief-from-abuse (RFA) orders and whether failure to complete the program should be treated as a crime. Representatives of the state’s attorneys and sheriffs said they were concerned about removing criminal enforcement; Carolyn Ganson, chair of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission and assistant attorney general, and Charlotte Glisserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, urged the committee to adopt the change and monitor outcomes.

A representative for the Office of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs told the committee they did not support language that would make failure to complete programming categorically noncriminal and warned that some violations of RFA conditions are appropriately addressed as criminal matters. The representative emphasized that some RFA conditions — such as prohibited contact or staying away from a person or location — can involve behavior that threatens victims and may already be prosecuted under abuse-prevention statutes.

Carolyn Ganson said judges should have the option to order programming earlier in family-court proceedings because it gives defendants a chance to learn different behaviors before matters escalate to criminal court. “Our hope is that by addressing this behavior earlier, we can avoid … having more people have to come to criminal court,” Ganson told the committee, and she stressed that orders would be imposed only after a finding that abuse occurred and after the defendant had an opportunity to be heard.

Ganson and others described the program as a complementary, rehabilitative option and noted practical aspects of enforcement. She recommended referencing Family Court Rule 16 to clarify that civil contempt is an available enforcement mechanism and cautioned that civil contempt places the burden on a plaintiff (the protected person) to seek enforcement. Ganson said the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission will collect data on referrals and completion rates and report back to the legislature, which would allow the committee to assess whether enforcement through civil contempt is functioning as intended.

Charlotte Glisserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said her organization supports the current compromise language and plans to monitor implementation and outcomes. “If H.222 is implemented, the Domestic Violence Council will monitor data on DVAP completion rates as well as victims’ experience going through these proceedings,” she said, adding that the council would return to the legislature if changes were needed.

Several legislators, including Senator Ruth, said they were hesitant to create new criminal offenses for failure to complete a court-ordered program and wanted to hear from people with lived experience and from the domestic violence service network before taking a final position. Committee leadership said the majority currently leans toward removing the clause that would make failure to complete non-criminal — meaning enforcement would remain available under existing criminal-violation paths — but that additional witnesses and data would be scheduled for follow-up hearings.

No formal vote was taken. The committee directed staff to seek additional testimony from survivors and service providers, to consider adding a reference to Family Court Rule 16 for clarity, and to rely on the planned reporting requirement so the legislature can review implementation data.