Committee hears support, questions for bill to streamline confirmatory adoptions for families using assisted reproduction

Montpelier — Advocates, a chief superior judge and committee members on the legislative Judiciary committee spent more than two hours discussing a draft bill that would create a streamlined confirmatory-adoption process for families formed through assisted reproduction.

Supporters said the bill would give intended parents a simple path to an adoption decree that complements existing parentage remedies under the Vermont Parentage Act. "It gives ... an adoption order, which states other states must recognize," Family Equality attorney May Giorg told the committee, arguing the change would protect Vermont children when families travel or move.

The bill’s supporters said it would not expand who is recognized as a parent in Vermont but would provide a faster, less onerous option than the existing stepparent/partner adoption process, which several witnesses described as awkward for families formed by assisted reproduction. "These are families that are created intentionally," Giorg said. "We are not going to treat them as exceptional under the law." She added that confusing forms, requests for letters of recommendation and other process hurdles deter some families from seeking protection.

Why it matters

Proponents said the measure would give families an additional, confirmatory adoption order that courts in other states are more likely to recognize under full faith and credit principles. That consistency, witnesses said, reduces disruption for children when families cross state lines.

Points of committee concern and recommended drafting changes

Members and the chief superior judge pressed drafters to tighten language on several technical points so the bill functions as intended and protects due process:

- Donor vs. parent: Judge Tom Zona and several witnesses noted that statutes in Title 15C treat some donors as nonparents but allow others to acquire parental status by written agreement. Zona recommended adding explicit cross-references so the bill does not inadvertently treat a donor with parental rights as someone who requires no notice. Committee members and witnesses suggested drafting that makes clear a donor who is a parent under 15C is entitled to notice.

- "Competing claims" language: The draft requires petitioners to attest that "no competing claims of parentage exist," but witnesses and the judge worried the term is ambiguous. Zona suggested replacing or clarifying "competing" with language tied to parental rights under chapter 7 of Title 15C so a court can readily evaluate whether anyone with legally recognized parental rights must be notified.

- Attestation and evidence: Witnesses compared the petition attestation to affidavit-based relief-from-abuse filings, saying a structured attestation allows a judge to make required findings from the written materials. But the judge and committee members recommended ensuring the petition includes every factual element the court must find, and preserving judicial discretion to seek additional information under a "good cause" standard.

- Hearing, written findings and timelines: The draft would allow the court to grant the adoption on papers in many cases and includes a 30-day target for issuing an adoption decree after a finding. Zona warned that fixed timelines without a clear remedy create enforcement questions and suggested language that lets the court act "promptly" while preserving the ability to require a hearing or to make written findings if needed. Committee members discussed administrative checks — training for probate judges and quarterly communications from the judiciary — as a way to promote consistency.

Witnesses and practical details

May Giorg, senior policy counsel for Family Equality and a Vermont attorney, urged the committee to adopt the streamlined route, saying many families already have parentage under Article 7 of the Parentage Act but need a simple confirmatory order that travels across state lines. Giorg noted she had written about the issue in the Vermont Bar Journal and said eight other states had adopted similar laws.

Judge Tom Zona, chief superior judge, told the committee a statewide procedure would promote "stability" and consistency across counties and said the courts were prepared to implement the bill if it passed. "If you adopt a bill that accomplishes the goal ... it would provide security for individuals," Zona said. He urged drafters to tidy definitions, protect courts’ ability to request more information when judges have cause to do so, and to avoid mandatory in-person hearings where unnecessary while preserving discretion.

Committee members asked whether to include de facto parentage or surrogacy provisions in the bill. Witnesses and the judge generally recommended against folding de facto parentage into this streamlined confirmatory pathway because de facto parentage often involves contested claims and would significantly expand the scope and potential litigation. Several speakers said existing Title 15C surrogacy protections reduce the need to add separate surrogacy language to this bill, though the committee left that decision to drafters.

Next steps

Drafters, attorneys and advocates agreed to refine statutory cross-references, clarify who must be notified, align the petition attestation with the findings the court must make, and consider replacing or defining "competing claims." The committee discussed scheduling a follow-up meeting for revised language and possible floor introduction timing.

Ending

No formal vote was taken at the hearing. Witnesses and the chief judge said the courts and advocates would work with the committee to clarify donor/parent definitions, notice requirements, the attestation language and timeline mechanics before the bill returns to the committee.