Judiciary Committee debates adding domestic-violence accountability programming to relief-from-abuse orders; GPS and vehicle provisions also discussed

The Judiciary Committee heard detailed testimony on H.222, a bill that would make explicit in statute that courts may impose domestic violence accountability programming as part of a relief-from-abuse (RFA) order and would add new language addressing electronic tracking (GPS) and temporary use or possession of a vehicle.

Supporters including the Attorney General's Office and victim advocates told the panel the change would give survivors a clear option to ask for programming and would formalize a practice some courts already use. Judges and court officials warned the change shifts RFAs from immediate, protective orders toward affirmative, rehabilitative obligations and said that could increase hearings, raise procedural questions and require new resources.

Todd Dalos, Assistant Attorney General, told the committee, “we continue to strongly support the bill, and the addition of domestic violence accountability programming as part of a relief and abuse order,” while also noting concerns about how programming might interact with criminal liability. Chief Superior Judge Tom Zernaich said Vermont's RFA statute is designed to provide “immediate relief to victims of domestic violence,” and warned that adding affirmative obligations would change how courts conduct the typically short, often-default hearings. Laura Byerly, Director of the Victims Rights Project at Vermont Legal Aid, said survivors want tools to change defendant behavior and that making programming a clear option would increase requests from litigants.

Proponents and opponents described what would change and what would not. Assistant Attorney General Todd Dalos said his understanding is that courts already have discretion to impose this kind of programming, and the bill's text would make that discretion explicit. Dalos added that domestic violence accountability programming (DVAP) often focuses on relationship skills rather than admissions of criminal conduct, and that many people are referred to those programs outside of criminal prosecution.

Judge Zernaich and other court witnesses emphasized practical and procedural questions if the Legislature adopts the policy. Zernaich asked who would monitor compliance, how courts would be told a participant did or did not complete programming, and what remedies courts would have if a person ordered to attend a program failed to do so. He warned that criminal or civil contempt mechanisms have limits: civil contempt to coerce compliance may not be effective if the remedy (for example, jail) prevents completion of a long program, and criminal consequences raise Fifth Amendment and counsel issues for respondents at RFA hearings.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed confidentiality and evidentiary risk. One legislator asked whether the bill should include language protecting statements made during programming from use in parallel criminal proceedings; Dalos said language similar to diversion programs might help but cautioned that broad immunity could have unintended consequences. Judge Zernaich recommended the committee consider precise procedural language if it chooses the policy.

The committee considered amendments in draft 1.1 that would add a course-of-conduct definition that explicitly includes electronic or digital tracking, a narrower exception for a parent monitoring a minor child, and a provision allowing a court to grant a plaintiff temporary possession or use of a vehicle. Zernaich suggested drafting changes (for example, making possession language permissive ' "may" rather than "shall"') and flagged possible unintended consequences such as parents inadvertently committing offenses by placing trackers in vehicles or ambiguity about carrier-tracked packages and luggage.

Advocates including Laura Byerly said making the programming option explicit would help survivors by offering a remedial alternative to criminal sanctions and could, in some cases, reduce repeat incidents over time. Byerly added that networks of providers and local task forces already connect litigants to programs in some counties and that judges and litigants can be supplied program information.

Committee members pressed whether adding programming would meaningfully change enforcement of RFAs. Judge Zernaich and other witnesses said enforcement mechanisms in ordinary RFAs (for example, no-contact and distance restrictions) are often observable by law enforcement, whereas compliance with programming requires a third-party report or filing to show completion or noncompliance. If the Legislature expects active compliance monitoring, Zernaich said it would affect court workload and budget; if it does not, then the new condition would function more like other RFA terms that rely on survivors or law enforcement to initiate enforcement.

On GPS and vehicle provisions, witnesses supported clarifying the law but urged careful drafting of exceptions and terminology (for example, how "stolen goods" or a parent's monitoring of a minor should be treated). Judges and staff recommended precise definitions and that the bill avoid language that would unintentionally criminalize common, non-surveillance uses of trackers (for example, carrier tracking of shipped goods or parents checking adult children without intent to surveil improperly).

No formal votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing. Committee members asked staff and witnesses for suggested statutory language and a written list of procedural steps the courts would need if the Legislature adopts the policy to ensure implementation is workable.

Ending: Committee members said they would continue work on H.222 and its draft 1.1 amendments. Several witnesses offered to submit written language and to return for further testimony if the committee requests it.