Judiciary committee reviews H.2: raises juvenile lower age to 12, pauses 19‑year‑old step of 'raise the age' until 2027

House Judiciary Committee members heard a detailed walkthrough of House Bill No. 2 on changes to juvenile jurisdiction, including a proposal to raise the minimum age for juvenile delinquency proceedings from 10 to 12, remove an exception that currently allows murder cases to be charged as delinquency matters for children under the minimum age, extend certain jurisdictional timeframes toward a child’s 20th birthday, and pause the scheduled April 1, 2025 expansion to include 19‑year‑olds until July 1, 2027.

The bill drew discussion about the policy goals and the state of implementation. Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the committee the draft on the table would "bump up that low threshold" so that "a 10 and 11 year old" would not be the subject of a juvenile proceeding under the proposal, although the conduct could still be relevant in CHINS (child in need of supervision) or other Department for Children and Families (DCF) matters.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Martin Malone, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and a representative from South Burlington, said the measures reflect concerns about brain development and the long-term consequences of criminal records. Malone said testimony from juvenile justice practitioners supported the change, and that the proposal to remove the murder exception was backed by the Defender General’s Office and other stakeholders because witnesses could not recall cases of children under 12 charged with murder in recent memory.

Nut graf: The proposal changes three core elements of juvenile jurisdiction in state statute: raising the minimum age for delinquency proceedings from 10 to 12; removing a statutory exception that allowed murder to be charged as delinquency for children under the minimum age; and delaying the second step of Vermont’s multi‑year "raise the age" implementation (which would have moved 19‑year‑olds into juvenile court on April 1, 2025) until July 1, 2027. Supporters say the changes align the law with developmental science and avoid subjecting very young children to juvenile court; critics warned the delay risks prolonging adult criminal processing for 19‑year‑olds and reflects current capacity shortfalls in DCF and treatment facilities.

Details and committee discussion

- Minimum age. Under current law the family division may exercise jurisdiction over a "child" defined as ages 10 through 18. The H.2 draft would change that lower boundary to 12. Fitzpatrick summarized: "the proposal is to move that minimum threshold up by 2 years to age 12." Committee members asked whether proceedings would become public; counsel replied the change affects the jurisdictional age only, not confidentiality rules.

- Murder exception. Current law contains a limited exception allowing a delinquency proceeding for murder committed before the statutory minimum age. H.2 would strike that exception so that no child under the proposed minimum (12) could be the subject of a juvenile delinquency proceeding, Counsel said.

- "Big" offenses and age thresholds. Fitzpatrick reviewed the longstanding statutory list of serious offenses historically called the "Big 12," which has shifted in recent years to a larger set (discussed in the session as 14 total offenses after revisions). He noted that certain newly added offenses apply at older ages (for example, some offenses apply only at age 16 or above).

- Upper‑age jurisdiction and extensions. The bill would modify existing rules that allow the family division to extend jurisdiction in some cases beyond a child’s 19th birthday. Fitzpatrick described current law as permitting a six‑month extension past a child's 19th birthday for some offenses committed at ages 16–17; H.2 would add another year of potential extension to reach a child's 20th birthday in certain circumstances. The committee discussed how that extension interacts with placement options and DCF custody authority.

- Pause of step 2 of "raise the age." Vermont phased in "raise the age" earlier: the change that brought 18‑year‑olds into the family division took effect July 1, 2020. The step scheduled to move 19‑year‑olds into family court on April 1, 2025 would, under H.2, be delayed until July 1, 2027. Fitzpatrick explained how the bill’s drafting removes the April 1 effective language and reenacts the 19‑year‑old provisions with the later effective date.

- Reporting requirement and Red Clover. H.2 contains a multi‑part reporting requirement for DCF and the Human Services agency to report progress on preparing to implement raise‑the‑age steps. The bill requires two reports (July 1, 2026, and Dec. 1, 2026) and adds a data request about utilization of the Red Clover treatment facility (monthly and annual counts, length of stay, treatment needs, and race/gender demographics).

Capacity and implementation concerns

Committee members and the sponsor said the delay responds to testimony that DCF and system partners lack personnel, facilities and other readiness to absorb new caseloads for 19‑year‑olds. Representative Malone cited testimony from Marshall Paul of the Defender General’s Office that cases charging 10‑ or 11‑year‑olds have typically involved defendants found incompetent to stand trial, and that witnesses could not identify recent instances of children under 12 charged with murder. Several committee members said they supported oversight and reporting but acknowledged frustration that the state has not funded or stood up the capacity needed to implement the scheduled April 1 change.

Votes at a glance (straw poll)

The committee took a voice/hand‑count straw poll on a motion to "concur with H.2 as presented." The motion record provided by the chair listed seven in favor, two opposed and two absent. The transcript does not identify a formal mover or seconder.

What the bill does not do

Counsel and lawmakers repeatedly noted what H.2 would not change: confidentiality rules of juvenile proceedings, and the fact that conduct by children younger than the juvenile‑court minimum could still be relevant in CHINS (child in need of supervision) or other DCF proceedings. Committee members also stressed the bill does not create a new placement facility and that placement capacity remains a separate challenge.

Next steps

Committee members said they would record the straw poll and report results back to the referring committee (Judiciary). H.2 was not taken up for a formal committee vote on the record in this session; the transcript records the committee's straw poll and plans for reporting the result to the larger body.

Ending: The committee closed the discussion after a roughly 42‑minute session and moved to scheduling and other housekeeping items; members directed staff to retain the reporting and oversight language in H.2 while the legislature and agencies address capacity issues.