Vermont panel reviews juvenile procedure: screenings, hearings and timelines explained

Ben, a committee presenter, told the Judiciary Committee that emergency and temporary care orders are used only rarely and that "if they're in custody, they can only be held at a secure facility." He described risk-and-need screening as the procedure routinely used in delinquency cases prior to filing a petition and said results go to the state's attorney and the child's attorney to inform charging or diversion referrals.

The presenter said the screening is "based on a subset of questions from [the] youth assessment and screening instrument" and is often performed by the Department for Children and Families (DCF) or a contracted community provider. "Typically that's done, or that's required to be done, when children present a low to moderate risk to reoffend," he said, and added that a state's attorney who declines diversion must state on the record why referral "will not serve the ends of justice." Representative Dolan questioned how youths learn they have the option to engage in screening; the presenter replied that DCF or the provider reaches out and youths have 15 days to accept the offer.

Committee members were taken through the sequence of court events after a delinquency petition is filed. The presenter described the preliminary hearing as the child's initial court appearance in family court, during which counsel is assigned and a guardian ad litem is appointed. He said petitions must be filed and made available to parties in advance (at least five days before a preliminary hearing when notice is provided by citation and at least 10 days prior to hearings when provided by citation), and that timelines are expedited for children held in secure facilities: merits hearings within 45 days after a preliminary hearing when the child is detained, and disposition hearings 35 days after the merits hearing.

The presenter explained the legal standards at trial: "The state has the burden to prove delinquent act beyond reasonable doubt," the same standard as adult criminal cases. If the state fails to meet that burden, the petition is dismissed and any orders are vacated. If a youth admits the facts, the court can proceed immediately to disposition if all parties agree. The presenter described disposition case plans as rehabilitation-focused, saying, "This is essentially the plan for the child, or their sentence, but it's not a sentence." Case plans can include medical, educational and vocational needs assessments, victim impact statements, services required for probation and permanency goals when DCF custody is involved.

Probation procedures and enforcement were a further focus. The presenter said the court issues a probation certificate with conditions that must be explained and signed by the juvenile and a custodial adult, though a certificate is not invalidated if the child refuses to sign. Conditions may include community service, restitution, restrictions on weapons, reporting to a probation officer, residence requirements and program participation. On violations, DCF or the state's attorney may enforce terms; an apprehension or summons may be issued and a two-step process (pre-violation probable-cause hearing and a violation evidentiary hearing) follows. "That violation must be established by a preponderance of the evidence," the presenter said.

The committee also heard about the youthful-offender track, described as a hybrid between juvenile and criminal processes. For youths considered for youthful-offender status, risk-and-need screening is required within 15 days of being offered; bail conditions set in criminal court remain in effect until family court takes jurisdiction; and family court reviews custody orders when a youth turns 18. Presenters repeatedly emphasized that certain custody orders or permanency conditions terminate at a youth's 18th birthday unless family court retains jurisdiction, which may be extended up to age 22.

Questions from legislators covered clarity on timelines and counsel adequacy. Representative Bishop and others highlighted the importance of robust representation for juveniles, noting heavy caseloads for assigned counsel. When asked whether the courts can meet statutory timelines, the presenter said he could not answer and that the committee would hear from judges and others who could speak to capacity.