House Judiciary Committee reviews bill to form child-and-parent legal representation task force

The House Judiciary Committee on April 30 reviewed H.193, a bill that would create a child and parent legal representation task force to study whether Vermont should reform how children and families are represented in CHINS (children in need of care or supervision) proceedings, relief‑from‑abuse petitions and substantiations of abuse or neglect, and whether the state can draw down federal Title IV‑E funds to support such reforms.

The draft before the committee would make the chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court (or a designee) the task force chair and list membership including the court administrator or designee; the commissioner of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) or designee; the defender general; the child, youth and family advocate; the executive director of Voices for Vermont’s Children or designee; and the executive director of the Vermont Parent Representation Center. The draft directs the task force to assess standards recommended by the American Bar Association and the U.S. Children’s Bureau and to consider the May 2021 National Center for State Courts study of CHINS case processing in Vermont.

Supporters told the committee the primary goal is to position Vermont to access Title IV‑E funding and to design an interdisciplinary model of representation that pairs attorneys with social‑work and family‑support staff. “This bill gives us the authority to do that,” said Larry Criss, director of the Vermont Parent Representation Center, referring to state planning and the federal funding stream. Proponents identified three priority uses for Title IV‑E funds that federal reviewers have been approving in other jurisdictions: recruitment, retention and training; expansion of interdisciplinary representation (for example, embedding family support workers with attorneys); and pre‑petition representation to connect families to services before DCF intervention.

The Department for Children and Families, represented at the hearing, said it supports the bill. “DCF ... has been and continues to be in support of this bill,” said Brenda Gulley, director of operations for DCF’s Family Services Division, and called interagency collaboration the key to maximizing federal funds for vulnerable families.

Some witnesses raised procedural and institutional concerns. Tom Zornack, chief superior judge, described the drafting choice to call the body a “task force” rather than a long‑running working group: “A task force is told, go move that pile of wood from place A to place B. The working group is told, we have a pile of wood. What should we do with it?” He said the legislature’s choice of a temporary, focused body reflected a policy judgment about the desired scope.

A representative of the Office of the Defender General told the committee the office and its contractors are already pursuing Title IV‑E reimbursement and argued the bill risks duplicating or “slowing down a process that's already started.” That speaker also warned that statutory or legislative oversight of defense practice could undermine institutional independence, saying in part, “This bill ... would be saying, no ... we want the judiciary and DCF and other players in the system to have input ... into how the defense is doing its job.”

Committee members and witnesses discussed specific edits to the draft during the hearing. The committee agreed to remove the word “potential” from the bill’s purpose language (so the charge reads to study the need and viability of an improved legal representation system), agreed to strike a proposed limit that the task force “shall meet not more than six times,” and agreed to add the chief justice as chair. The committee also directed staff to add explicit reference to relief‑from‑abuse petitions and substantiations of abuse or neglect, which had been inadvertently omitted in an earlier draft. The draft on the table directed the task force to submit a report proposing reforms and any implementing legislation “on or before December 15, 2025,” and to hold its first meeting called by the chief justice by Aug. 1 of the year; the original draft also listed a termination date for the task force as Feb. 15, 2026, and members discussed extending that endpoint into May 2026 to provide continuity after a report is issued.

Committee members asked for an interim update on Title IV‑E efforts from the Office of the Defender General as the contracting process proceeds. Defender General staff said they are negotiating a contract with a private vendor to provide the reporting and compliance infrastructure required by federal ACF/AoA reviewers, and that those vendors typically take on upfront risk to stand up auditable systems; the committee discussed how the task force’s involvement could affect those contracting timelines and requested clarity on that point.

The committee did not take a final vote on H.193 during the April 30 session. Members directed staff to incorporate the agreed edits into the draft, to return with an updated version, and to schedule additional testimony and discussion. The committee also sought a brief status report on Title IV‑E progress before the next milestone in the bill process.

The drafting and debate reflect competing priorities: stakeholders pushing to use federal (Title IV‑E) dollars to expand interdisciplinary representation models that pair attorneys with family support workers and earlier legal intervention, and institutional concerns about preserving the independence of Defender General practice and avoiding duplication with existing implementation efforts. The committee’s next steps are to circulate an amended draft, receive updates on the Title IV‑E contracting timeline, and consider a straw poll or formal vote at a later meeting.