Deputy defender general urges two‑year delay to include 19‑year‑olds; supports sections 1–9 and 14 of H.2

Marshall Paul, deputy defender general and chief juvenile defender with the Office of the Defender General, told the Judiciary committee during testimony on H.2 that his office “support[s] sections 1 through 9 and 14, and we don't support the other sections.” He said the supported sections delay or adjust the planned expansion that would bring 19‑year‑olds under juvenile jurisdiction and raise the minimum age for certain charges.

Why it matters: Paul said the state’s capacity problems and gaps in data after the pandemic make the April implementation date for adding 19‑year‑olds impractical. He argued a delay would allow Vermont to restore residential and treatment capacity and gather better outcome data before enlarging the juvenile system.

Paul urged the committee to approve section 1, which he said “raises the minimum age to 12 from 10,” noting from his work as a juvenile defense attorney that he could “count them on 1 hand, the number of 10 year olds I've represented, and not a single 1 of them has been found competent by the court.” He added that competency evaluations are expensive — “we end up having a couple of competency evaluations to the tune of, you know, $5,000 each” — and that delaying prosecutions of very young children usually redirects cases to child welfare (CHINS) rather than juvenile adjudication.

On the planned inclusion of 19‑year‑olds, Paul said Vermont is still rebuilding post‑pandemic capacity for residential placements and staffing. He described modest recent gains — medium‑tier placements “are adding staff, which means they can add beds” and some secure planning is underway — but said the system would not be ready by the current effective date. He told the committee he supports the delay sections because “if 19 year olds were to come into the system on April 1, the system would not be prepared for you.”

Paul criticized sections 10–12 of H.2, which would change transfer mechanics when juveniles accrue multiple probation violations, calling those provisions “unconstitutional” in his testimony. He said Vermont already has statutory transfer authority (he referenced 33 V.S.A. §5204) that allows transfers up to the merits adjudication and that the correct fix is consolidation and streamlining of transfer hearings rather than the proposed direct transfers to youthful‑offender status. He described the older system that allowed transfer decisions tied to pleas as creating perverse incentives — rewarding the guilty and punishing the innocent — and proposed a consolidated single transfer hearing that includes the full set of criteria for any transfer to adult criminal court or for youthful‑offender status.

Paul outlined elements he said should be part of the reform: a single consolidated transfer hearing with all applicable criteria, better use of existing expedited transfer provisions in 33 V.S.A. §5204 (which already lists certain offenses that trigger expedited transfer for those over 16), and ensuring risk‑assessment or youthful‑offender reports can be completed before a hearing if needed. He said his office and Judge Zona have drafted language to address the “ping‑pong” problem of repeated transfers between juvenile and criminal divisions.

On broader system needs, Paul endorsed building a secure, high‑quality juvenile facility in Vermont for highest‑need youth and noted ongoing work around a planned facility in Vergennes, including drawings and site plans. He also pointed to an existing program — Red Clover, run under contract by Sentinel — as an example of a recently opened higher‑tier program that is adding capacity but is not a full replacement for the secure facility the state needs.

Paul said Vermont is missing federal matching funds the state could claim for juvenile justice and child welfare (Title IV‑E) and that other states draw down large sums. He noted an estimate from the child and youth advocate that about $1.75 million might be available and said his office believes the state may be able to draw roughly $4–5 million, though drawing those funds may require upgrades to DCF reporting systems.

The testimony closed with Paul reiterating support for delaying the planned inclusion of 19‑year‑olds and for the committee to consider consolidated transfer‑hearing language. The committee chair said the hearing will continue the following day with additional witnesses.