Judiciary committee reviews H2 amendment to delay step‑up of 'raise the age' and tighten juvenile-to-criminal transfer rules

The Judiciary Committee heard a walk-through of a proposed amendment to H2 that would change delinquency jurisdiction and related juvenile‑justice procedures. Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council told the committee, "The proposal is raise that age up to 12," describing changes that include raising the minimum age for family‑division delinquency jurisdiction from 10 to 12, extending how long courts may retain jurisdiction, delaying the next step of the state's raise‑the‑age schedule for 19‑year‑olds, and adding an expedited transfer option to the criminal division for certain probation violators.

Why this matters: the amendment packages several substantive changes for ages, timing and court procedure that affect how some 16‑ through 19‑year‑olds are handled. Committee members pressed staff on likely costs, Department of Children and Families (DCF) capacity, and constitutional issues that could arise if juvenile proceedings later feed into criminal prosecutions.

What the amendment would do

- Lower‑bound change: Section 1 would raise the lower age for family‑division delinquency jurisdiction from age 10 to age 12. Fitzpatrick said the change would mean “a 10 or 11 year old that committed what would otherwise be a criminal offense could [no longer] be brought into the family division in a juvenile proceeding.”

- Extended juvenile jurisdiction: For young people already subject to juvenile jurisdiction, the amendment would lengthen the period a court may extend jurisdiction. Under current law the family division can extend jurisdiction for certain 16‑ or 17‑year‑olds to age 19; the amendment would permit that extension to age 20. Fitzpatrick described the change as providing courts "a longer period of time to have the child be subject to their juvenile case plan, juvenile probation officer, all the other features of being a juvenile in a family court."

- Delay of step 2 of Raise the Age: The amendment would delay the scheduled change that makes 19‑year‑olds subject to family‑division jurisdiction for non‑Big‑14 offenses. Fitzpatrick noted the step was scheduled to take effect April 1, 2025; the draft amendment would push those substantive provisions to a delayed effective date of July 1, 2027 and would repeal the statutory language that would otherwise take effect April 1, 2025 so the change does not automatically occur. The amendment language also limits the delayed provisions to proceedings filed on or after the new effective date.

- New expedited transfer option for 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds: The proposal adds a procedure for non‑Big‑14 juvenile cases involving 18‑ and 19‑year‑olds. If an 18‑ or 19‑year‑old on juvenile probation commits a second or subsequent probation violation, the amendment would allow a motion and a time‑limited hearing to determine whether continuing juvenile treatment "poses an unreasonable risk to public safety." Fitzpatrick explained the expedited hearing must be held "as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 15 days after the motion is filed." If the court finds the unreasonable‑risk standard satisfied, the motion would be granted and the case would be sent to the criminal division; the draft also provides that most information developed in the juvenile proceeding would be inadmissible against the youth in the subsequent criminal prosecution.

- Easing 'ping‑pong' for youthful‑offender conversions: The amendment would add an option allowing parties or the court to convert a juvenile proceeding into a youthful‑offender proceeding without first sending the case up to criminal court and then back down. As drafted, that conversion can be initiated by the state's attorney, the defendant, or the court; if denied, the matter would remain in the family division.

Questions and concerns raised

Committee members asked about cost and capacity. One member said DCF "is under resourced now" and warned that without increased resources a delayed implementation date would not prevent capacity problems. Fitzpatrick acknowledged that DCF workload would increase under some scenarios and recommended asking DCF for cost and capacity information.

Several members pressed the committee about the choice of ages and described the package as complex and potentially confusing to the public. A committee member said the mix of incremental age changes made the statute feel "convoluted," and another urged waiting for an anticipated December report that the committee expects to recommend simplification.

Marshall Paul of the Office of the Defender General raised a constitutional concern, citing Brady v. Jones (1975) and warning that "jeopardy attaches when you're prosecuted in the juvenile court," a point the committee noted will require careful drafting and further legal review. Committee members discussed whether the transfer mechanism should be framed as a transfer rather than a new prosecution to avoid double‑jeopardy risk.

Process and next steps

Staff said the draft is a working proposal: parts of it are modeled on existing youthful‑offender language, and several provisions (including timing, notice, and the scope of the expedited transfer) may be revised after stakeholder comment. Fitzpatrick and the chair said the committee will take further testimony, including DCF and other stakeholders, and that the amendment would likely be revised before any committee vote. No formal votes occurred in this session and no final decisions were recorded.

Ending

Committee members scheduled more hearings next week and asked staff to collect cost and implementation testimony from DCF and other agencies before the committee moves the draft forward.