Judiciary Committee questions H.2 juvenile‑jurisdiction changes, citing double‑jeopardy and DCF capacity concerns

The Judiciary Committee reviewed amendments to H.2 on juvenile jurisdiction and “raise the age” implementation, hearing legal counsel and Department for Children and Families (DCF) testimony that identified constitutional, operational and capacity constraints.

Eric Fitzpatrick, with the Office of Legislative Council, told the committee that one proposed expedited transfer provision in section 12 — which would permit transfer from the family division to the criminal division after a juvenile adjudication and multiple probation violations — “is barred by this double jeopardy clause” because adjudication in the family division qualifies as the first jeopardy event.

The issue matters because it limits how the Legislature can draft expedited transfer language. Fitzpatrick said cases and precedent require any transfer option to be framed and timed as pre‑adjudication to avoid violating the Fifth Amendment’s double‑jeopardy protections. “If you were to still want to pursue this kind of approach ... it would have to be pre‑adjudication,” he said.

Why this matters: the committee is considering multiple, interlocking changes to H.2 that seek to alter jurisdictional lines, add options for transfer or conversion to youthful‑offender status, and delay or modify the scheduled implementation of Raise the Age provisions. Those changes affect custody, court process and the availability of services for 16–19‑year‑old youth.

Legal constraint on post‑adjudication transfer

Fitzpatrick walked the committee through controlling authority, describing U.S. Supreme Court and Vermont Supreme Court decisions that treat an adjudication in juvenile court as an event that can trigger double‑jeopardy protections if a subsequent criminal trial follows. Reading from a Vermont case, he summarized the holding: a trial of a juvenile as an adult following an adjudication of delinquency “violates [the] double jeopardy clause.” He advised lawmakers that transfer language must be carefully timed and framed to avoid an impermissible post‑adjudication criminal prosecution.

DCF testimony on readiness and alternatives

Erica Radke, deputy commissioner of DCF’s Family Services Division, told the committee the agency supports some parts of H.2 but urged a delay to the April 1 implementation date and cautioned against immediate repeal of Raise the Age for older youth. “DCF’s values are in alignment with a number of sections of H.2,” Radke said, while adding that “a delay is better policy than moving forward with an April 1 implementation.”

Lindy Boudreaux, DCF’s Adolescent Services Director, said DCF supports raising the minimum delinquency age from 10 to 12 and is neutral on extending family‑division jurisdiction for older youth. “In the last 5 years we’ve only had 5 youth … who’ve been on probation who are between the ages of 10 and 11,” she said, and described the department’s view that extending jurisdiction may help some youths but would not itself increase accountability for those who choose not to engage.

Tyler Allen, director of DCF’s high‑end system of care unit, described the agency’s work to stabilize placements and services for youth with co‑occurring, high‑acuity needs — the subgroup that consumes the most resources and for whom placements are hardest to find. “When we talk about high end system of care ... we’re talking about young people who have the highest acuity needs,” Allen said.

DCF also proposed returning to a conditional‑plea process for youthful‑offender consideration — an approach the agency said would shorten court proceedings and reduce the “ping‑pong” effect between family and criminal divisions. Lindy Boudreaux described the prior practice: a conditional guilty plea in criminal court followed by disposition in family court and explained the three disposition considerations DCF used to recommend youthful‑offender probation (public safety, amenability to treatment, and available juvenile services).

Child Advocate opposes most H.2 additions; supports only minimum‑age increase

Matthew Bernstein, the state’s Child, Youth, and Family Advocate, said his office supports raising the minimum delinquency age from 10 to 12 but opposes the other additions in the current H.2 amendment. “We testified in favor of this bill on 01/17/2025 in its previous version. Essentially, we oppose everything that you’ve added since then,” Bernstein told the committee and read excerpts from a prior letter criticizing requests to pause or repeal Raise the Age.

Operational gaps and reporting expectations

Committee members pressed DCF about readiness. Radke acknowledged progress on staffing and system upgrades but said some elements are outside DCF’s direct control — for example, available out‑of‑state placements and private vendor stability. She noted the department had reduced vacancies and put a CCWIS (child welfare information system) request for proposals in for federal review.

Multiple committee members said they expect continuing reports during any delay. The witnesses and lawmakers discussed a reporting cadence to track workforce, placement capacity and IT progress; committee members suggested several reports across a two‑year delay period rather than frequent monthly filings.

Key numbers and clarifying details

- DCF said it has documented only five probation cases in the past five years involving 10‑ and 11‑year‑olds. (Lindy Boudreaux) - Bernstein’s office and others urged at least the six Family Services Worker (FSW) positions DCF requested in prior reports and identified roughly 30 vacancies DCF had previously reported. - DCF noted progress on workforce development and an RFP for its child‑welfare IT system (CCWIS) is with federal review. - Committee discussion proposed a smaller reporting cadence (for example, three reports during the two‑year delay period) to monitor implementation milestones.

What the committee did and next steps

No formal vote occurred during the hearing. Committee counsel and DCF staff will work with lawmakers to reframe language that implicates the double‑jeopardy doctrine, and the committee indicated it will continue to refine H.2 and may request DCF and other witnesses back for follow‑up testimony. As Chair Lalonde said near the close of the session, the committee expects to “be making some further changes” and to reconvene witnesses as needed to finalize the bill.

Ending note

The hearing underscored two constraints on any immediate legislative fix: constitutional limits on post‑adjudication transfers and operational limits on DCF’s ability to expand services quickly. Lawmakers framed H.2 as an attempt to balance accountability and youth rehabilitation, and the committee signaled it will continue to weigh legal limits and implementation capacity as it modifies the bill.