Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Filial Support Statute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews H.108 to remove criminal penalty for failing to support parents
Summary
A legislative committee heard testimony on H.108, which would strike the parental-support provision from 15 V.S.A. §202. Staff and witnesses said the provision is rarely used, that the Office of Child Support lacks authority under federal rules to enforce the parental piece, and that deleting it would narrow an outdated criminal statute.
A legislative committee on Friday considered H.108, a bill that would remove the parental-support provision from 15 V.S.A. §202 and thereby eliminate the criminal penalty that can apply when an adult fails to provide financial support for a destitute parent.
Michelle Towns of the Office of Legislative Council told the committee she researched the statute’s history and noted its origins reach back to England’s Elizabethan Poor Relief Act of 1601. “If you are surprised that there is a legal requirement subject to a criminal penalty for not supporting your elderly parents financially, if you are able to do so, count me in that category of surprise as well,” Towns said.
Towns outlined a timeline of changes to the law, citing enactments and amendments from 1890, 1902, 1915, 1921, 1925 and later federal-era developments such as the Social Security Act of 1935 and Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. She said the parental-support language was added in 1925 and that the criminal statute has been revised over time, including a 2010 amendment that allowed the Office of Child Support (OCS) to prosecute certain counts.
Tom Zoney, chief superior judge, told the committee the statute is seldom used. “There have been three counts brought of a violation of 15 V.S.A. section 202. They were brought against a single defendant as part of a 12-count case, and they were dismissed,” Zoney said, adding that before 2010 he recalled presiding over a Rutland trial under the statute but that prosecutions are uncommon.
Robin Arnell, deputy director of the Office of Child Support, said OCS does not rely on the parental-support criminal provision and that federal rules limit what the state’s federally funded child support program may pursue. “Bottom line upfront, we have no objection [to repeal],” Arnell said. She added that criminal prosecutions are resource-intensive and that OCS now relies on a range of civil remedies and administrative tools, including wage withholding and contempt, to secure child support.
Committee members pressed staff on whether deleting the parental provision would create gaps or whether the statute should be broadened to cover unmarried partners. Staff and witnesses cautioned that removing or expanding language such as the married-only reference could broaden the policy questions and would require additional testimony; they recommended limiting the current change to the parental-support provision as drafted in H.108.
No formal vote was taken Friday. Committee leadership said H.108 is scheduled for a committee vote on Tuesday afternoon.
The hearing record included references to 15 V.S.A. §202, a U.S. criminal statute (18 U.S.C. §228) that addresses willful failure to pay child support at the federal level, and historical statutes mentioned by staff. Witnesses and staff repeatedly characterized the parental-support criminal provision as an archaic relic that is rarely enforced and likely redundant given existing civil remedies and federal-child-support enforcement mechanisms.
The committee did not adopt any amendments at the hearing and asked members to review the materials ahead of the scheduled vote next week.
