Committee finds H.105 favorable after debate over juvenile defense, Title IV‑E funding

The Judiciary Committee on Feb. 28 voted to find House bill H.105 favorable as amended by draft 2.1 after a discussion focused on public defense in CHINS (child welfare) proceedings and the potential to draw down federal Title IV‑E funds to expand interdisciplinary representation.

Ben Novogrovsky, of the Office of Legislative Counsel, told the committee the staff had prepared draft 2.1 of a strike‑all amendment and included parentheticals in the repeal section to explain laws being folded into the bill. "I have included in the repeal section just parentheticals describing the laws that are being repealed because aspects of them are being rolled into this bill," Novogrovsky said.

The hearing then turned to competing accounts of how juvenile child‑welfare defense currently operates in Vermont. Marshall Paul, chief defender in the Office of the Defender General, told the committee that many factual statements made in prior testimony were inaccurate and laid out how his office staffs and pays CHINS representation. "We have about 15 public defenders who primarily represent parents and children, and about 40 more contractors who represent parents or children in the same cases," Paul said, adding that the office measures workload by granular "added case events" rather than simple pending case counts.

Paul said the office uses a lawyer equivalent caseload (LEC) standard of about 150 added case events and that the FY24 average per‑LEC payment for juvenile contract attorneys was $227,000. He defended the availability of investigative and expert resources, the family support worker program and mandatory training. "CHINS attorneys have every resource that's available to criminal attorneys," Paul said. He also described judicial performance evaluations for contractors conducted on a multi‑year cycle and said those evaluations showed contractors scoring around "very good." He urged better communication between stakeholders and noted his office had already been working with a private vendor to solve data/reporting barriers to drawing down federal funds.

Brenda Gulley, director of operations for the Family Services Division at the Department for Children and Families (DCF), told the committee DCF supports the bill and described efforts begun after a 2017 federal informational memorandum made Title IV‑E funding available for parent and child representation. Gulley said Vermont's child welfare data systems—she described the social services master index as dating to 1982—have limited the state's ability to identify the specific eligible activities and children required for federal reporting. DCF has $15 million of match funding identified for a CCWIS (comprehensive child welfare information system) but estimates a fuller system costs closer to $40 million. "We need to put those systems in place. It's not an easy thing to do," Gulley said, while also saying smaller draws, even if limited, would still be beneficial.

Committee members and witnesses discussed tradeoffs between creating a formal legislative working group and continuing the administration's current vendor path. DCF and the Defender General said they had been working with a vendor that they believe can perform the federal reporting and take on associated liability, and warned that creating an additional, broad committee could slow an already ongoing administrative effort to draw funds. At the same time, lawmakers expressed interest in a statutory working group to reexamine the CHINS chapters and to provide cross‑agency accountability.

Vote at a glance: The committee voted to find H.105 favorable as amended by draft 2.1. Roll call in the transcript recorded the following responses: Arsenal — Yes; Dovsland — Yes; Harvey — No; Malai — Yes; Oliver — Yes; Raish/Chrissy — Yes; Verdict — Yes; Paul — Yes. The motion was moved (motion credited to "Ken" in the record) and seconded (identified in the record as "Second"). The outcome recorded in committee was: approved.

Why it matters: H.105 and the related discussions aim to clarify how Vermont might expand interdisciplinary defense services for parents and children in CHINS proceedings and to access federal Title IV‑E reimbursement for eligible costs. Proponents say drawdowns could fund social‑work integration, collateral representation (education, housing, immigration, landlord‑tenant) and early legal intervention; opponents or skeptics urged careful review of current practice, supervision and outcomes before changing statutory structures.

The committee paused further testimony and signaled more work to come, including follow‑up with stakeholders. Committee members suggested a narrower work group may be the most practical next step to produce draft recommendations for future legislation and to reconcile differing accounts of current practice.