Lawmakers consider letting judges order domestic violence accountability programs as RFA condition

Lawmakers heard testimony on H.2222’s amendment to allow judges to include participation in certified domestic violence accountability programs (DVAPs) as a condition of a one‑year final Relief From Abuse (RFA) order, with witnesses and committee members debating how compliance, reporting and confidentiality would work in practice.

The discussion focused on whether courts, victims and providers would have clear mechanisms to verify progress and whether requiring program participation would raise criminal‑law or self‑incrimination concerns. Charlie Glesserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the recommendation came from the state’s domestic violence fatality review commission and described the change as “a preventative measure at its core.”

Kim McManus of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs told the committee the department is not involved in the civil RFA process: “the state's attorneys and sheriffs, while we will inform individuals of the ability to get an RFA, we are not involved in the RFA process.” McManus said prosecutors and victim advocates learn about program participation through existing criminal‑justice channels, but would need clearer reporting if DVAP participation were attached to an RFA so prosecutors would know when to file a violation. She noted practical concerns about timing: some certified programs run 24–30 weeks, others 27 weeks, and local contracts vary on allowable absences and whether a participant may join midstream.

McManus emphasized the legal stakes if orders are violated: a violation of a prevention order can escalate a subsequent domestic assault charge to a higher felony level, and a second prevention‑order violation is also a felony. She contrasted that with probation violations, which may carry suspended sentences and incarceration, adding that “the consequences for someone not completing this program . . . are serious.”

Bianca Zanella, director of Rutland DVAP LLC and a longtime facilitator, described how programs operate and why participants and plaintiffs seek them. She said programs vary across counties and noted most providers follow the Vermont Domestic Violence Council’s standards. Her Rutland program uses a 27‑week, open‑enrollment model with weekly meetings; she described active participation, homework and one‑on‑one check‑ins as core elements and said providers already use confidentiality practices with mandated‑reporting exceptions for immediate safety. “Without the explicit authorization of the court to order defendants from RFA proceedings to complete a DVAP, many individuals who could benefit from this type of program go unreferred,” Zanella said.

Charlie Glesserman said existing provider practices could be adapted for the RFA context: providers already send letters to referral sources or victims upon completion or when a participant stops attending, and the Domestic Violence Council oversees biannual certification. Glesserman suggested the committee could consider statutory language that treats failure to complete as progress toward completion rather than an automatic criminal violation. He also noted state data showing about 3,000 RFA petitions are filed annually and roughly 1,000 final orders are granted.

Committee members pressed witnesses about operational details: whether virtual providers can accept referrals across state lines; how open‑enrollment versus closed‑enrollment programs affect timely completion; whether providers would alert victims when a participant becomes agitated in class; and whether the court or another mechanism would receive compliance updates in the absence of a probation officer. Witnesses described variation across providers but said many programs already perform 1‑on‑1 outreach, check‑ins and interventions and that virtual options increase statewide access.

On a separate but related topic in the amendment, witnesses and judges discussed adding electronic‑surveillance language to the civil stalking/course‑of‑conduct definition to explicitly reference tracking devices and GPS. McManus supported making surveillance language explicit but warned the committee to consider exceptions and unintended consequences (for example, legitimate tracking of a person with dementia). Glesserman and others said existing civil remedies and some existing criminal statutes may already apply but agreed clarifying language could help.

Advocates recommended removing proposed new criminal provisions in the amendment that some witnesses said could create unintended consequences; Glesserman said his organization was inclined to recommend removing that language and focusing on civil protections and implementation questions.

The committee did not take a vote. Members said staff and stakeholders would refine language during the town‑meeting break and return with a new draft. A committee member closed by saying members would take up the next version when they reconvened after the break.