House committee hears bill to create working group on child and parent legal representation

A House committee on Feb. 27 heard testimony on H.193, a bill to create a Child and Parent Legal Representation Working Group to design an interdisciplinary system for representing children, parents, custodians and guardians involved in Vermont child protection (CHINS) proceedings. The bill sets membership, a timeline for work and a one‑time appropriation to cover per diem payments and reimbursements.

The bill, introduced to the House Human Services Committee, would require the group to propose an administrative structure and recommended compensation levels for attorneys and social service personnel, identify federal funding (including Title IV‑E) that could support the system, and produce performance standards and training requirements. It directs the chief justice of the Vermont Supreme Court to call the first meeting on or before Aug. 1, requires a report by Dec. 15 to the House Human Services Committee (and the Senate counterpart), and terminates the working group on Jan. 15 of the following year.

Why it matters: supporters said the change could produce better legal representation, reduce time children spend in foster care, and unlock federal Title IV‑E matching funds that Vermont is currently not capturing. Opponents and several committee members pressed the bill’s sponsors and witnesses on membership (notably whether legislators should serve), the modest appropriation for member per diems, and whether the statutory language should require the working group to “consider” versus be strictly “consistent with” prior studies.

Ben Novogratzky, outside legislative counsel, walked the committee through the bill. He outlined the membership as drafted: the chief justice or designee; two current House members (not from the same party) appointed by the speaker; two current senators appointed by the committee on committees (not from the same party); the defender general or designee; the commissioner of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) or designee; the Child, Youth and Family Advocate or designee; a representative from Voices for Vermont’s Children; a representative from the Vermont Parent Representation Center; and an individual with lived experience who is represented by the defender general and appointed by that office. Novogratzky also summarized the bill’s duties, which include estimating appropriations, recommending compensation for attorneys and social‑service personnel, and proposing whether offices of child and parent representation should be established within the judiciary or another structure.

Several lawmakers questioned membership and compensation. Representative Martin Malone (chair) and other members said they were uneasy with including legislators on the working group, noting perceptions of a conflict when sponsors serve on compensated study bodies. Novogratzky explained the draft follows a historical practice of including legislative members and that per diem payments are limited to not more than 10 meetings and are paid from appropriations to the Office of the Court Administrator or to the General Assembly for legislative members. The bill includes an appropriation of $18,830 to the Office of the Court Administrator in fiscal 2026 to cover per diem compensation and reimbursements for nonlegislative members for up to 10 meetings.

Witnesses described the policy need and models. Larry Christ, executive director of the Vermont Parent Representation Center, told the committee that Vermont has relied for decades on contracts with solo practitioners to represent parents and that the current system underpays attorneys and lacks interdisciplinary teams, supervision, performance measures and consistent training. "You cannot make a living in this state being a child protection attorney representing parents and provide effective legal representation. You cannot do it," Christ said, adding that the lack of sustained, supervised teams contributes to longer cases and inconsistent representation.

Susan Jacobs, an attorney who helped create an interdisciplinary legal representation program in New York City (the Center for Family Representation), reviewed research on team‑based representation. Jacobs said multidisciplinary teams—attorneys working with social workers and parent‑advocates—have been associated in studies with reduced time in foster care, higher reunification rates and more kin placements, without increasing subsequent maltreatment. She described pre‑petition representation (engaging families before a CHINS filing) as a key component that can divert families from court.

Witnesses and lawmakers also discussed federal funding and data requirements. Christ said Vermont has missed roughly $1.8–$2 million a year in potential Title IV‑E matching funds because the state lacks the data reporting system the federal Children's Bureau prefers (CCWIS). He urged the working group to develop a “workaround” so Vermont can demonstrate the data practices required for federal matching funds. Committee members pressed whether the bill’s direction to be “consistent with” prior studies would constrain the group; witnesses said the language can be used to set guardrails to align a Vermont model with federal expectations and evidence‑based practices.

Committee members asked whether the working group could produce draft legislation and whether the Dec. 15 deadline is feasible. Witnesses said the group could begin work quickly if the legislature passes H.193 and that some participants are willing to start sooner; members noted the chief justice’s role in convening the group and asked the chief justice’s office for a practical assessment of timeline feasibility.

No formal motions or votes on H.193 were recorded during the hearing. The committee took testimony and posed follow‑up questions for additional witnesses and sponsors.

The bill’s next steps will depend on committee consideration and whether the legislature advances H.193; the working group, if created, would be required to return a report to the legislature by Dec. 15.