Judge warns standby-guardianship language could shift caseload to probate courts

Chief Superior Judge Tom Zone told the House Judiciary Committee on May 7 that H.98’s standby-guardianship language would clarify whether guardianships can be filed after an adverse immigration action, but warned the change could shift work from family to probate dockets and strain county resources.

Zone said the bill would let a petitioner file guardianship papers “once the immigration action adverse immigration action has been taken” rather than requiring filings in advance. He told the committee Vermont’s statute currently does not address so‑called “springing” guardianships and that judges now reach different conclusions: “Some judges would say yes. Some judges would say no.”

The judge framed the bill as a policy choice for the Legislature that would create statewide clarity in an area of unsettled practice. He said courts already hear emergency minor guardianships and noted the existing emergency procedures that provide a short timeline for review: “you heard this morning about the 72 hours of 3 days, if it's if the emergency guardianship is granted.”

Zone described operational effects the committee should consider. If a child’s case goes to the juvenile division of family court under a DCF (Department for Children and Families) protective response, it follows the CHINS process in family court; but a guardianship petition would go to the probate division. That split, he said, “could backlog that probate division as far as moving ahead” if many petitions arrive in one county. He described the current county-based probate structure and pay differences among probate judges that affect capacity, saying in busy counties the elected probate judge “may have difficulty” keeping up.

Zone also noted possible remedies the judiciary could deploy if filings rise: increased judicial resources, use of the judiciary’s interpreter services, and temporary assignment of a superior judge to perform probate work. “I have the authority to appoint a superior judge to also serve as a probate judge,” he told the committee, describing that as one tool to address sudden demand.

Committee members pressed Zone on implementation specifics raised by witnesses, including privacy concerns for guardianships filed as public proceedings and obstacles to reunification when parents are removed from the country. Zone observed that guardianship gives a caregiver legal authority to enroll a child in school and obtain medical care, and that in some jurisdictions consular processes have been used for foreign‑country home studies — but he deferred detailed answers about reunification logistics to DCF.

The committee did not vote on H.98 during the session. The hearing record captures the judiciary’s view that the bill would reduce legal uncertainty nationwide but would transfer identifiable workload and resource considerations to probate judges and court administration.

Zone’s remarks and the committee exchange centered the choice before lawmakers: clarify post‑immigration guardianship filings and accept attendant judicial workload shifts, or leave the current ambiguous practice in place until resolved by case law.