Senate Judiciary hears S.9 to allow after‑hours civil protection orders for sexual‑assault survivors

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Jan. 29, heard testimony on S.9, a bill that would allow survivors of sexual assault to seek civil protection orders outside regular court hours.

Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel and vice chair, walked the committee through the bill and the statutory background, saying the proposal is modeled on the after‑hours process that already exists for relief from abuse (Title 15) and other emergency orders. "So these ex parte orders are ones where the defendant, isn't necessarily there because they're done on an emergency basis," Childs said, adding that the temporary ex parte orders typically last 10 days and are followed by a hearing.

The bill would add after‑hours procedures for the civil orders provided under Title 12 for "orders against sexual assault" while not extending those procedures to stalking orders. "The judicial officer is to issue the order solely on the basis of the contents of the affidavits provided," Childs said, describing the proposed telephonic/electronic affidavit process and the role of an authorized court designee who would receive and transmit requests to the judicial officer.

Chief Superior Judge Dodge, testifying for the Judiciary, said the bill "mirrors" the Title 15 after‑hours language and recommended a narrow wording change to make the scope explicit. "I would put the words 'against sexual assault' right there just to make it very clear," Dodge said, referring to language on line 20 of the draft. Dodge also supported a delayed effective date (suggesting extra time for administrative setup) and told the committee the courts handled 32 sexual‑assault petitions statewide in 2024 through Dec. 12 and could absorb after‑hours procedures, though he noted a possible bargaining‑unit (union) negotiation over on‑call pay that could have budgetary implications.

Advocates urged the committee to pass the change to remove a safety gap for survivors who experience sexual assault outside court hours. Carlyn Glesserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said advocates who provide 24/7 support consistently report that survivors’ safety is compromised when they cannot seek protection at night or on weekends. She recounted a member organization’s case in which a survivor assaulted on a Friday evening could not file for a civil protection order until Monday, leaving "a dangerous gap in her safety plan," and said, "Survivors like Atria's client, should have access to protective measures when they need them, and that is why we are strongly supportive of s 9."

Laura Beyerle, director of the Victims Rights Project at Vermont Legal Aid, described a case in which a survivor spent an entire day visiting multiple court divisions and was ultimately assisted that evening by an after‑hours worker who helped complete forms and secure protection. "That after hours worker really helped her in a very vulnerable moment and helped walk her through those forms," Beyerle said.

Committee members asked about the decision to exclude stalking from the after‑hours process. Dodge and other witnesses said stalking petitions are far more numerous—193 stalking petitions statewide as of Dec. 12, 2024—and that adding stalking to after‑hours procedures would create a substantially larger administrative and potential budgetary burden. Advocates and judges also noted that some stalking claims arising from family or household relationships remain covered by Title 15 and thereby already have after‑hours access.

The committee did not take a formal vote on S.9. Members discussed a technical amendment (adding the phrase "against sexual assault" in one line of the bill) and administrative timing; the Judiciary suggested a delayed effective date to allow courts and any affected bargaining units to implement procedures. The committee scheduled further consideration and possible markup after additional outreach to stakeholders, including defenders and law enforcement.

Next steps: the committee recessed for a short break and planned to return later the same day for additional discussion and potential markup after staff follow‑up with witnesses and administrative offices.