Committee hears concerns on H.2 over probation-enforcement, custody for 18‑year‑olds

Tucker Jones, an attorney with the Department of Public Safety, told the Judiciary Committee on Feb. 12 that the latest draft of H.2 raises several technical and substantive implementation questions, most notably the effective dates for provisions and how the bill would enforce probation violations without restarting cases in criminal court.

"I think you're trying to move the issues in the right direction here," Jones said, while urging clearer timing and mechanics around sections that the draft labels for later effective dates. He flagged that the probation‑violation provisions (sections 10–12) are written to take effect in 2027 and that the bill's "raise the age" delay appears to be set for 2025, not 2024, suggesting the committee confirm those dates in the draft.

Jones told the committee he is concerned that the bill's current remedy for violations—sending a matter back to the criminal division to be refiled and tried from the start—would be "problematic." He said starting a new criminal proceeding after a delinquency adjudication could create constitutional and practical problems, including requiring victims to testify again and repeating earlier work.

The witness urged the committee to develop enforcement tools for delinquency conditions of release and probation violations that do not require a full criminal restart. He also recommended clarifying whether and how the Department for Children and Families (DCF) could take physical custody of 18‑year‑olds and whether DCF could compel an 18‑year‑old placed in custody to participate in treatment or services.

Chief Superior Judge (title as given in the transcript) said the constitutional question about transferring adjudicated delinquency cases to criminal court has already been discussed by the state Supreme Court in a matter referenced as JG and agreed that uncertainty exists about whether DCF can take legal or physical custody of someone age 18. "I would concur with that assessment," the judge said when asked about custody authority.

Susanna Davis, identified in the transcript as the Bridal Equity Director for the state, told the committee the office supports using the additional time created by delayed effective dates to ensure DCF has staff capacity for the caseload the change would produce. She also voiced concern that applying new provisions only to proceedings that begin after the effective date could create two cohorts of similarly aged youth treated differently, and she urged planning to avoid unintended parity issues.

Committee members and staff pressed for data. One committee member called for better statewide numbers on how often older youth "age out" of delinquency jurisdiction before rehabilitation is completed; witnesses said localized counts exist but statewide tracking was incomplete while DCF updates its IT systems. Jones and others described examples of serious offenses (intimate‑partner assault, aggravated assault, lewd and lascivious conduct, possession of child sexual‑abuse material, and carrying a dangerous weapon in the commission of a felony) where timely enforcement and an effective backstop are especially important.

Committee discussion identified several next steps rather than final decisions. The committee chair explained the draft staggers effective dates to avoid overwhelming DCF with hundreds of additional cases at once; members asked DCF to prepare a transition plan. Susanna Davis asked that any required transition planning include early community engagement and modest resources (space, translation, stipends) to make outreach meaningful.

No formal motions or votes were recorded on the H.2 draft in the transcript provided. Committee members said a separate legislative committee is studying transfer procedures and is expected to report later this year; the committee chair indicated the Judiciary Committee will continue to solicit technical input from witnesses as revised drafts are circulated.

Ending: The testimony emphasized implementation details—timing, custody authority, enforcement mechanics and data—rather than new policy direction. Witnesses and jurists urged the committee to resolve technical effective dates, craft enforcement language that does not require restarting criminal proceedings, clarify DCF's statutory authority over 18‑year‑olds, and require a DCF transition plan with community input before broad changes take effect.