Advocates, prosecutors split on H.2 changes to juvenile jurisdiction and 19‑year‑old inclusion

Members of the House Judiciary Committee heard competing views Tuesday on H.2, the bill that would change juvenile court jurisdiction. Karen Bastine, chair of the Council for Equitable Youth Justice, told the committee the council "fully supports, raising the minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction to 12," while Kim McManus, speaking for the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, said the department "thinks phase 2 should be repealed" unless implementation concerns are fixed.

The issue matters because H.2 would reshape which young people are handled in Vermont's family (juvenile) court and how long they can remain under Department for Children and Families (DCF) supervision. Committee members and witnesses focused less on ceremonial matters and more on operational details: how long youth can remain on probation, how and when 19‑year‑olds would be added to family court, and whether family‑court processes include a practical custody “backstop” to ensure compliance and public safety.

The Council for Equitable Youth Justice, a state advisory group established under the Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, told the panel it supported the bill’s core change to raise the minimum jurisdictional age from 10 to 12 and backed provisions that allow youth extra time to finish treatment. "It'll be important to note that this will mean that youth are in the system longer," Bastine said, cautioning that longer supervision can have negative consequences when services are not appropriately dosed.

Representatives of the state’s attorneys’ office largely endorsed delaying the addition of 19‑year‑olds to family court — the bill’s so‑called phase 2 — and said their preferred outcome would be outright repeal of phase 2 if implementation problems were not fixed. "Our department's position remains that we think phase 2 should be repealed," McManus said. McManus said the department worried that adding 19‑year‑olds could replicate problems seen after the earlier addition of 18‑year‑olds, including cases that present serious offenses in family court and an increased workload for DCF and prosecutors.

A key contested point was enforcement when a young adult fails to comply with juvenile probation. McManus urged creating a custody mechanism so judges and DCF could hold individuals until they appear for expedited hearings. "If we could figure out the custody piece ... that would potentially address a number of our concerns," McManus said, adding that custody would provide a backstop for immediate safety risks and for young adults who are not engaging with treatment or probation.

Committee members and witnesses also debated the draft language that would allow transfer of cases from family court to criminal court when a young adult repeatedly fails to comply. Prosecutors cautioned that the transfer approach creates concerns about victims having to go through multiple proceedings and about duplicative work if prosecutors must build a case in family court and then retry it in criminal court. McManus called a conditional plea mechanism — earlier described in testimony as the former ‘‘WIO’’ approach — a cleaner solution that would reduce jurisdictional uncertainty.

Witnesses repeatedly noted gaps in data and the need for continued reporting by DCF on implementation. Both Bastine and McManus expressed support for keeping reporting requirements so the system’s progress can be monitored; Bastine said the council "believe[s] that DCF should continue to report on their progress towards this goal." Lawmakers asked the state's attorneys' office to solicit local state’s attorneys' positions so the committee can understand whether the department’s stance reflects the statewide practice.

No formal action or vote on H.2 occurred during the hearing. Committee members indicated they expect revised language in coming weeks and asked legislative counsel and stakeholders to draft clearer custody and transfer provisions and to provide updated data and county‑level positions before the committee moves forward.

The conversation also touched on narrower technical points: concerns that extending the upper age for DCF probation could leave some youth "in the system longer" if services are not properly matched to risk and need; that sections 10–12 of the current draft were identified as problematic and were not commented on in detail; and that proponents and opponents alike want to avoid unintentionally expanding juvenile jurisdiction without safeguards for victims and public safety.

Committee staff said they anticipate another version of the draft next week and will solicit additional written and oral input from DCF, state’s attorneys, defenders and other stakeholders before taking further action.