Committee reviews H.2 changes: raises juvenile entry age, delays raise-the-age implementation and adds disputed custody authority

Draft 3.1 of H.2 was the focus of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that walked through three principal changes to juvenile delinquency law: raising the initial age of family-division jurisdiction from 10 to 12; lengthening how long a youth can remain under family-division jurisdiction; and postponing the April 1 implementation of the Raise-the-Age provisions that would bring 19-year-olds into family-division jurisdiction until July 1, 2027. The draft also adds a contested new option allowing a disposition order to direct the Department for Children and Families (DCF) commissioner to take "physical custody" of people who have attained 18 but are under 22.

The bill’s drafter, Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee that sections 1 and 2 amend family-division jurisdiction by changing the starting age from 10 to 12 and by extending the court’s ability to keep youth under juvenile jurisdiction for an additional year beyond current practice. Fitzpatrick summarized the Raise-the-Age portion as striking the draft’s current April 1 effective date and replacing it with a two-year pause that would set implementation on July 1, 2027. He also described a new reporting and transition-planning requirement tied to that delayed implementation: three required progress reports (December this year, July next year, and December next year) to Judiciary and Justice Oversight bodies, and a mandated transition plan for cases that began in criminal court shortly before the new juvenile implementation date but would have started as family-division cases after it took effect.

Supporters and opponents gave the committee differing views. Theresa Gomez of Human Rights for Kids urged a stronger minimum-age approach: "The establishment of a minimum age of prosecution is a human rights issue," Gomez said, and she recommended either striking the statute’s existing exception for murder or adopting a split floor (for example, a firm floor of 10 with a narrow exception for 10- and 11-year-olds). Gomez told the committee that, based on the group’s data request to the Vermont Judiciary, no child under 12 was charged with first-degree murder in the dataset they reviewed from February to 2024.

Several members of the bench and counsel raised concerns about the new "physical custody" language on page 8, subsection 8 of the draft. Chief Superior Judge Tom Zonay told the committee: "If physical custody means to take physical custody, what are the terms? There's no conditions. There's no parameters. There's no duration." Zonay and others said the new phrase lacks required guidance on duration, placement authority, and procedural protections for liberty interests. He warned that the provision, as written, could leave judges and families without consistent standards: "If the court's going to take your liberty interest, they should know before they come into court what the criteria is," he said.

Marshall Paul of the Office of the Senate General Counsel argued that the relevant protections and definitions largely already exist in statute. Paul said the statutes define "child" and "custody" in ways that cover persons who have attained 18 but are alleged to have committed delinquent acts, and that the working practice in other states treats older youth similarly to younger youth. He agreed with the judges that additional statutory clarity could reduce confusion, but he cautioned that repeating statutory language in multiple places sometimes increases complexity rather than solves it.

DCF witnesses framed the problem as much more operational than purely statutory. Erica Radke, Deputy Commissioner of the Family Services Division, recommended keeping the age-10-to-12 change and the July 1, 2027, delay in this bill and considering the custody and placement issues in separate legislation, such as a public-safety or implementation bill, to allow more time for detailed policy work. Lindy Boudreau, DCF’s Adolescent Services Unit director, said the department can take custody of an 18-year-old for placement but that provider contracts and program design frequently limit the ability to place adults involuntarily. "When we have had custody of an 18 year old... they have to sign themselves in," Boudreau said; she explained that many treatment providers will not accept involuntary admissions of adults, so the barrier is program availability and contract design rather than statute alone.

Tyler Allen, DCF’s High-End System of Care director, described how plans for the Green Mountain Youth Campus in Vergennes initially included a distinct unit for transition-age youth but that community reaction and cost and provider concerns led to retooling. Allen said the department received limited interest from providers to run involuntary treatment programs for 18+ youth, and that lack of willing providers constrains the state’s options.

Committee members and witnesses debated whether the custody provision is necessary if the statutes already allow extended jurisdiction and custody for some older youth. Several participants suggested technical fixes: if the legislature keeps the physical-custody language, it should add criteria, duration limits, judicial findings, and review procedures so judges and DCF staff have consistent guidance and the rights of those placed into custody are protected.

No formal vote occurred during the hearing. The bill’s drafters and witnesses agreed on two process points: (1) the committee may continue refining statutory wording to clarify custody definitions and the interplay with existing statutes; and (2) programmatic gaps (especially lack of a willing provider for involuntary placement of 18–19-year-olds) will likely require operational solutions—new contracts, facility design changes or a separate bill—rather than solely statutory fixes.

The committee asked staff to return with clarifying statutory citations and redrafts that would address judges’ concerns about duration, criteria and procedural protections; DCF offered to supply statutory citations and to continue exploring programmatic options for transition-age placements. The committee scheduled follow-up work before finalizing its position on H.2.

Ending: Committee members said they plan further drafting work and follow-up with the Senate Judiciary leadership to minimize surprises in the Senate; no final action was taken at the hearing.