Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary committee hears concerns about enforcement, custody and lack of facilities in bill raising age of delinquency jurisdiction
Summary
Witnesses told the Judiciary committee the bill to raise the juvenile age and delay parts of the reform needs clearer custody language and a placement plan for 18‑year‑olds, otherwise courts and prosecutors could face enforcement gaps starting April 1.
Members of the Judiciary committee heard testimony that a bill to raise the age of juvenile delinquency jurisdiction should be amended to clarify custody authority and to address the absence of secure placements for 18‑year‑olds.
Tim (first name only), who spoke to the committee as a stakeholder with prior involvement in related working groups, told members “we need to avoid chaos on April 1” for practitioners, children, law enforcement, state’s attorneys and judges and urged either moving the bill quickly or moving the delay provision into language that can be advanced promptly.
Why it matters: committee members and witnesses said the bill as drafted raises practical enforcement problems. Several witnesses — including Tucker Jones of the Vermont Department of Public Safety — said Vermont currently lacks secure facilities and programming to hold 18‑year‑olds who are treated through delinquency, and that absence limits courts’ and agencies’ ability to compel compliance with probation or conditions of release.
Committee discussion and witness testimony focused on three linked problems: (1) whether the bill’s custody definition creates a true custodial authority for people 18 and older; (2) how to enforce conditions of release and probation for 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds when no facility exists; and (3) whether removing exceptions (for example, an exception for murder for children under 12) would eliminate any path to delinquency filings for the youngest alleged offenders.
Tucker Jones, Department of Public Safety, told the panel that prosecutors were increasingly filing serious offenses as delinquency cases for 18‑year‑olds but that “there is not currently a secure facility to place those youth,” a condition that leaves the delinquency framework without an effective enforcement “backstop” when young people do not comply with court‑ordered conditions.
Witnesses also described confusion in practice between legal custody and physical placement authority under Title 33. Committee members said they had heard conflicting testimony from the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and from providers about whether DCF may take custody or place 18‑year‑olds in secure programs; witnesses asked staff to draft clarifying language the committee could review before a potential vote.
No formal action or votes were recorded in the transcript. Committee members asked staff and witnesses to continue working on draft language that would clarify custody definitions and consider enforcement options — including whether violation of probation or conditions of release could trigger a separate criminal proceeding for noncompliance — but several witnesses said that fix would likely require separate legislation or more time than the current bill allows.
What’s next: committee members said they hoped to vote the bill out before the next recess but asked for additional drafting on the custody definition and on operational questions about placement and programming for 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds.
Ending: witnesses and committee members repeatedly returned to the practical constraint witnesses described: raising the age without an identified placement and enforcement mechanism could shift cases into a legal limbo rather than produce clearer outcomes for victims and youth.
