DCF, DAIL seek statutory clarity to use sealed records during protective investigations; racial equity office urges caution on sealing policy

Department for Children and Families officials told the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 6 that records created during child protection investigations should remain DCF records even if related criminal records are later sealed.

Brenda Guli, director of operations for the Family Services Division at the Department for Children and Families, said the division treats intake forms, interview summaries and law‑enforcement affidavits gathered during joint investigations as DCF records and uses them to determine child safety and registry placement. “Those records are DCF records,” Guli said, “and that includes law enforcement summary of interviews.”

Guli described the existing process: a centralized hotline receives calls of concern; accepted reports are assigned to family services workers who interview alleged victims, alleged perpetrators and others. She said roughly 13% of hotline intakes originate from law enforcement and are entered into the Family Services Division database (familyservicedivisionfsdnet). When an allegation involves possible criminal activity, Guli said statute authorizes joint investigations and generally gives law enforcement the lead while family services staff participate in interviews to avoid re‑traumatizing victims.

Guli and DCF general counsel Jennifer Mica told the committee the agency applies a preponderance‑of‑the‑evidence standard for child‑protection decisions, a lower threshold than criminal prosecutions. DCF asked the committee to add language to S.12 clarifying that information gathered by the Family Services Division as part of a child safety investigation remains usable by DCF for statutory purposes even if a related conviction or record is sealed.

Representatives from the Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living (DAIL) made similar points. Stuart Sher, general counsel at DAIL, said Adult Protective Services conducts joint investigations under statutory authority (chapter 69, title 33) and wants the same assurance that records it develops remain departmental records for use in safety determinations and in administrative proceedings, including registry and variance reviews. John Gordon, director of Adult Protective Services, said DAIL uses criminal history and other checks when assessing whether applicants may work with vulnerable adults and that some property or financial misdemeanors could be relevant to those employment decisions.

Sher and Gordon noted DAIL’s background‑check policy requires criminal background checks, adult and child abuse registry checks and federal exclusion checks for anyone working with vulnerable populations; they said the department conducts tens of thousands of such checks annually. They told the committee that if records are sealed under proposed law language, DAIL needs statutory clarity that records it compiled during joint investigations remain available for departmental decision‑making and as evidence in expungement or registry proceedings.

The Office of Racial Equity urged careful drafting and stronger records‑management planning. Susana Davis, executive director of the Office of Racial Equity, said the office supports preserving expungement as an option and recommended clear, plain‑language definitions for “seal,” “expunge” and related terms. The office urged the committee to consult the state archivist and chief records officer about records management, the judiciary’s special index of sealed records, and the technical and fiscal costs of long‑term digital retention.

Laura Carter of the Office of Racial Equity’s Division of Racial Justice Statistics added that Vermont’s judiciary is required to maintain a special index of sealed and expunged records and that developing a retention and management strategy is critical before expanding or changing access. Carter said jurisdictions that have adopted automatic (“petitionless”) sealing stress quality control and cross‑agency coordination so eligible records are swept correctly and removals are verified.

Committee members asked about current practice and consequences. DCF and DAIL witnesses said the agencies generally already have access to materials developed during joint investigations, that many child‑abuse and maltreatment categories would not be eligible for sealing, and that the agencies seek statutory language reflecting existing practice rather than a new broad authority to search sealed records unrelated to their investigations. The agencies described safeguards in employment checks, including prospective employee authorization for background checks and a variance process to review whether a conviction should bar work with vulnerable populations.

No vote occurred; committee discussion was paused for further witnesses. The committee collected technical suggestions: clarifying the list of offenses that would be eligible for sealing, ensuring notice and procedural protections for people in deferred‑sentencing programs, and developing oversight and audit mechanisms to confirm sealing orders are implemented across disparate systems.

Ending: Witnesses said they would provide recommended statutory language and additional detail on operational impacts; the committee scheduled further testimony on related topics and deferred final decisions.