Committee weighs H.222 amendment to let judges order domestic violence accountability programs in civil protection orders

The Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed a revised draft of H.222 that adds remedies in civil protection order proceedings, including authority for a court to award temporary possession of a vehicle and to require a defendant to complete a domestic violence accountability program approved by the Council on Domestic Violence.

Michelle Childs of the Office of Legislative Council reviewed the draft amendment. The vehicle provision would allow a court, at a final hearing or on an ex parte temporary basis when necessary to prevent further abuse, to award possession of a vehicle to a plaintiff if the court finds the plaintiff needs the vehicle to protect themselves or stabilize the household. The temporary, ex parte vehicle award would be subject to a higher standard at an initial hearing.

The amendment would add a new option to the list of relief available in final civil protection orders: a requirement that the defendant complete a domestic violence accountability program (DVAP) approved by the state Council on Domestic Violence. The draft specifies that failure to complete the program would not constitute a crime for purposes of 13 V.S.A. § 1030 (the statute that covers violation of abuse prevention orders) but that noncompletion could subject a defendant to civil contempt proceedings. The committee discussed whether civil-contempt enforcement is the appropriate first step and agreed to monitor outcomes before considering criminal enforcement.

Representatives of advocacy and enforcement organizations told the committee they support adding the program option. Charlie Glesserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said stakeholders were comfortable with the latest draft and that the change would give judges a tool to order remedial programming in appropriate cases.

A representative of the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission and an official who had met with Attorney General Clark urged the committee to keep the program option and suggested simplifying subsection language so the judge may order DVAP without additional limiting qualifiers. The Attorney General’s office indicated support for the option as drafted but the committee heard differing views on whether program noncompletion should carry criminal consequences.

Committee members discussed practical implementation questions: current DVAP capacity, how many civil protection orders are issued annually (witnesses estimated roughly 1,000 final orders across categories, without a precise count for this specific remedy), how providers can report participant and completion numbers, and whether the statutory text should require that programming be provided at no cost. Several members suggested removing the explicit “no cost to the defendant” phrase to avoid creating a statutory bar if funding or program fees change.

Witnesses and committee members recommended built-in tracking. The Domestic Violence Council already collects participant and completion data for DVAP providers; the committee directed staff to add language or a reporting request so future legislative review can compare referrals made from the civil protection order process to referrals stemming from criminal cases and measure completion rates.

Committee members said they were inclined to leave the enforcement mechanism as civil contempt for now, with a plan to revisit whether criminal enforcement is appropriate after monitoring how the program option is used and whether it improves outcomes for survivors and defendants. The committee did not take a final vote on the amendment during the session.