Committee reviews H.222 to let courts order completion of domestic-violence accountability programs

The Judiciary committee reviewed H.222, a bill that would add completion of a certified domestic-violence accountability program to the list of measures a court may include in a final relief-from-abuse order.

Michelle Childs of the Office of Legislative Council told the committee that the bill addresses civil protection orders, not emergency ex parte orders, and that “this bill is just talking about the civil orders of protection.” She summarized existing practice by noting the civil and criminal tracks can run separately and that final protection orders are issued on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

The bill would add a new item to the statutory list of possible relief, permitting the court “to order the defendant to complete a domestic violence accountability program that’s approved by the Council on Domestic Violence,” Childs said. Witnesses from Vermont advocacy and program networks told the committee they support the change as a way to close a referral gap between the civil court process and the domestic-violence accountability programs (DVAPs) that currently take most participants from criminal sentences.

Charley Gloserman, policy director for the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, told the committee that Vermont already has community-based DVAPs and that the programs are statutorily certified by the Vermont Council on Domestic Violence. “DVAPs are required, by statute, to be certified by the Vermont Council on Domestic Violence,” Gloserman said. He said the programs are treatment-oriented, aim to change behavior, and can improve outcomes for survivors and people who use violence.

Witnesses and staff gave the committee several data points about capacity and referral patterns. Gloserman and other witnesses said courts issued roughly 1,000 final relief-from-abuse orders in 2023 while roughly 400–500 people enrolled in DVAPs each year. Program referrals currently come mostly from criminal probation: witnesses gave a breakdown of about 85% of participants referred by the Department of Corrections, 11% by the Department for Children and Families and about 3% self-referred. Program administrators said Vermont now funds DVAPs with state base funding and that participant fees have been eliminated.

Committee members pressed witnesses on operational and legal questions the bill raises. Lawmakers asked how programs define “completion,” whether mere attendance suffices, how programs evaluate participation and whether information disclosed in programming could be used in a parallel criminal prosecution. Childs and witnesses acknowledged those concerns and identified three topics to resolve before the committee advances the bill: (1) an operational definition of “completion,” (2) how to preserve necessary confidentiality or limit evidentiary use of program participation, and (3) how any compliance or enforcement would work given differences between family-court processes and criminal probation.

Program administrators explained typical program features: most DVAP curricula run about 26 weeks, usually meeting about 90 minutes per week, with a minority of parenting curricula lasting 10–15 weeks. Witnesses said Vermont currently has 12 community-based DVAPs, has added a thirteenth youth program this year and is piloting a program in Lamoille. They estimated a plausible near-term increase of roughly 200–300 additional participants if courts begin ordering programming in some final RFAs, and said the system’s current funding (identified in testimony as about $850,000 in base Department of Corrections funds) is intended to cover programming without an immediate request for additional appropriation.

Committee members also noted enforcement differences. As one committee member summarized, violations of a court-ordered protection can be prosecuted as a criminal misdemeanor under state law; witnesses replied that family court currently has no routine compliance check for most RFA conditions and that enforcement today typically relies on a separate criminal complaint if a violation occurs.

The committee did not vote on H.222 at the hearing. Members said they will take additional testimony, including from program facilitators and Department of Corrections representatives, and expect to consider drafting technical language to address completion criteria and evidentiary protections before returning to the bill.

The bill discussion continued to a later session where sponsors plan to present amendments and additional witnesses.