Committee hears bill to create expedited confirmatory adoption for parents who used assisted reproduction

The Vermont House Judiciary Committee on an unspecified date considered H.98, a bill to create an expedited confirmatory adoption process for parents who conceived a child through assisted reproduction. Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Council, and attorneys and advocates supporting the bill told the committee the change would give families an additional, faster option to obtain a judicial adoption decree confirming parentage.

The bill would add a new provision to the adoption title (Title 15A) to permit a limited, streamlined adoption when a child was born through assisted reproductive technology (ART) and the non‑birthing parent is already legally recognized as a parent under Vermont parentage law (Title 15‑C). Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Council, described the proposal as providing “belts and suspenders” to give parents “more assurance from a portability standpoint.”

Supporters said the change responds to families’ concerns about recognition of parentage outside Vermont. Polly (GLAD attorney), testifying for GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said the Vermont Parentage Act is a model for other states and that many families seek an adoption decree because they perceive it as the strongest protection when they move or travel. “People are really, worried and fearful. . . . This is a tool for these families to get an adoption decree in a more streamlined fashion,” she said.

Under the draft language described to the committee, a petitioner seeking confirmatory adoption would file a written petition signed by all parties and include a marriage certificate if applicable, a declaration signed by the birth parent and the non‑birth parent explaining ART circumstances and confirming consent to ART and that there are no competing claims of parentage, and a copy of the child’s birth certificate. If the elements are met, the court could waive an in‑court appearance, a home study, fingerprint or criminal record checks, registry checks, and minimum residence requirements. The bill also would bar requiring notice to a donor when donor gametes or embryos were used.

The bill sets a target of the probate court granting the adoption within 30 days if the petition is complete and the statutory elements are satisfied; the court would retain discretion to require additional information and to deny expedited relief for good cause. The draft also clarifies that the existence of a legally recognized parent under Title 15‑C should not, by itself, bar an adoption under this section.

Committee members asked questions about several details. Members pressed why surrogacy (gestational carrier agreements under Title 15‑C, chapter 8) is not included; witnesses and counsel said that surrogacy situations are governed by other, more prescriptive provisions that typically include counsel and pre‑birth judgments, and that the drafters limited H.98 to ART births without gestational carrier involvement to keep the expedited process narrow. Attorney Kirk Hughes, a family law practitioner, said some courts are unfamiliar with current forms and procedures and that families seeking confirmatory adoption face inconsistent requirements across counties. “People are terrified,” Hughes said, describing frequent calls from families seeking legal security.

Committee discussion also addressed competing claims of parentage and “holding out” or de facto parent claims. Witnesses said the provision requires petitioners to attest that there are no competing claims so the court can assess unusual family arrangements; the court would remain able to investigate and require additional steps if questions arise. Members explored whether the expedited path should be available when a third person has a pending de facto or holding‑out parentage claim; witnesses warned that contested de facto parentage cases typically require full hearings and could undercut the bill’s streamlined intent.

Several committee members and witnesses suggested drafting changes: adding catchall language so the provision stays aligned if other adoption requirements change, and considering whether surrogacy or consensual de facto parent judgments should be added without creating litigation pathways that would defeat the expedited process. The committee also asked staff to present the existing chapter 8 surrogacy provisions for comparison to inform whether to expand H.98.

No formal vote or amendment was recorded in the transcript provided. Committee members discussed an implementation date in September to allow court staff and the bench time to adopt procedures and forms; witnesses said rapid implementation has been done previously but that adequate time and notice to the bar and court personnel was a policy choice.

The testimony left the committee with choices to make about scope (whether to include gestational carriers or consensual de facto parent situations), specific petition language (attestation and court finding on competing claims), and implementation timing. The bill’s proponents said the change would create a faster, less burdensome route for families already recognized under Vermont law to obtain an adoption decree that many families view as the most portable protection across state lines.