Committee reviews H‑657 omnibus bill to change DCF rules on Reach Up, homeless youth, restraints and aftercare

A legislative committee held a walkthrough of H‑657, an omnibus bill that would make multiple changes to Department for Children and Families (DCF) law, including removing the $9,000 asset limit in the Reach Up program, allowing certified unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain identification and certain services without parental consent, tightening rules and reporting for restraints and secure transport, and creating a process for judicial review of aftercare placements to enable federal funding. The committee reserved detailed markup until it hears witnesses and resolves drafting and implementation questions.

Katie McGlenn of the Office of Legislative Council, who presented the draft, said the bill bundles several interlocking pieces ‘‘because they had some interlocking pieces, that sort of built on each other.’’ She described key provisions: repeal of the statutory $9,000 Reach Up asset cap and elimination of the current carve-outs that specify which savings accounts are excluded from asset calculations; new definitions and protections related to Social Security benefits for youth in foster care; a certification pathway for ‘‘unaccompanied homeless youth’’ to access IDs, vital records and certain services without parental consent; and expanded reporting and rulemaking around restraints and secure transport.

Why it matters: Committee members emphasized that the changes could affect youth’ s eligibility for benefits, the state’s liability exposure, and DCF’s ability to draw down federal match money for transition services. Representative members repeatedly asked for clearer drafting so the law does what is intended and produces accessible, auditable data for oversight.

Major provisions and committee concerns

Reach Up asset limit: McGlenn explained the draft ‘‘removes the asset limit in Reach Up’’ and would delete subdivision language that currently sets a $9,000 cap and lists excluded savings accounts. Members asked whether deleting the carve‑outs could have drafting side‑effects and sought rewording to preserve program eligibility rules while eliminating the cap.

Social Security benefits for foster youth: The draft specifies that a department acting as a Social Security representative payee ‘‘shall not use any portion of a child’s Social Security benefits to offset the state’s costs for the child’s maintenance, except [to preserve SSI eligibility].’’ It would also require the department to establish a trust (a qualified ABLE account for children receiving SSI), monitor federal asset/resource limits, and provide an annual accounting of benefit use to the child, guardian or counsel, the family division of Superior Court, or the Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate. Committee members requested confirmation of existing duties and whether the annual accounting is already required.

Unaccompanied homeless youth certification and consent: The bill would create a statutory certification for ‘‘unaccompanied homeless youth’’ (defined in the draft as age 16 or older and not in physical custody of a parent or guardian) that a school liaison, shelter director or other designated staff may complete. A certified youth could apply at no charge and without parental consent for non‑driver identification, learner’s permits and operator’s licenses; obtain vital records copies at no charge; consent to health care (medical, dental, mental health and substance‑use treatment) and, within limits, enter housing agreements and seek employment. Katie McGlenn said the certificate ‘‘would allow them to obtain admission to a high school or post secondary school, would allow them to open an account in a state or federally chartered bank or credit union, and it would allow them to receive services for victims of domestic or [sexual] violence as appropriate.’’

Members repeatedly raised liability and capacity concerns if the law allows minors to enter contracts or incur debt. One member said youth ‘‘might be taking on debt that they maybe can’t afford,’’ and asked whether Vermont law currently limits minors’ capacity to bind themselves to loans. McGlenn and members agreed that the draft needs clearer guardrails and consultation with financial regulators; the bill requires the division to consult the financial regulator about minimum certification requirements for contracting with banks and credit unions.

Restraints, secure transport and reporting: The draft narrows mechanical restraint use and requires soft restraints to be available as a first option; mechanical restraints ‘‘shall not be used as a substitute for soft restraints if the soft restraints are otherwise deemed adequate for safety.’’ It would require DCF to submit an annual report (by Jan. 15) on secure transports, including number and demographics of children transported, whether law enforcement or a private agency transported them, the number and types of mechanical restraints used, custody status at time of transport and the purpose of transport. Committee members pushed for explicit statutory language requiring written supervisory review of every decision to transport a child with restraints and for the annual report to show the percentage of transports that had prior supervisory review so error rates are visible.

Solitary confinement and seclusion limits: The draft prohibits room confinement (labeled in the bill as solitary confinement in places) except as a temporary response to a child posing ‘‘serious and immediate risk of physical harm’’; staff must attempt less‑restrictive techniques and offer mental‑health contact. The draft sets release timeframes (immediate release when the child regains self‑control; caps including not more than three hours if risk to others and not more than 30 minutes if risk to the child). Members noted the need to align terminology (seclusion vs. solitary confinement), define ‘‘least restrictive,’’ and determine whether the provision applies broadly to all children in DCF custody or only to those in detention settings.

Judicial review for aftercare placements: The bill would require DCF to submit a petition to the family division of Superior Court for aftercare placements or programs for children exiting custody; the court would approve placements if in the child’s best interest. Committee members said the requirement responds to federal rules that affect DCF’s ability to draw federal match funds for post‑custody supports; they plan to hear Judge Zonay and DCF leadership on the court’s role and timing.

Pregnancy surveillance working group: The draft would create a working group to study DCF’s use of a pregnancy calendar and make recommendations for alternatives and supports; membership would include DCF leadership, the Child, Youth and Family Advocate (or designee), Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (or designee), and people with lived experience appointed by legislative leaders. The draft contains a small appropriation (listed as $15,000 in the bill text) for per diem and facilitation; members questioned selection criteria for individuals to be ‘‘monitored’’ and discussed narrowing the working group’s charge.

Process, witnesses and next steps

Committee members asked for witness testimony from Judge Zonay (or family‑division judiciary), Deputy Commissioner Radke, the Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate, Voices for Vermont Children, the Public Defender’s Office, and the treasurer’s office (which will be engaged on the SSI/trust aspects). The chair said staff will try to schedule ‘‘a couple, three of the witnesses this week’’ before markup, noting the crossover calendar will require the committee to resolve rulemaking and effective‑date sequencing in short order.

Quotes from the hearing

Katie McGlenn, Office of Legislative Council: ‘‘So the first section has to do with Reach Up, and this removes the asset limit in Reach Up.’’

On reporting and oversight, a member urged that documentation be explicit: ‘‘When transportation with restraints for a particular child is approved, the reasons for the approval shall be documented in writing’’ and the report should show the degree to which supervisory review occurs prior to transport.

What’s next: The committee will call witnesses, refine statutory language (definitions, supervisory documentation, reporting timeframes), and schedule markup ahead of crossover. The presenters noted that some provisions will require rulemaking and staggered effective dates to be implementable by the July 1 target in the current draft.

Limitations: The walkthrough was a draft review; no motions, votes or final decisions on the bill were recorded in the transcript. Several items were flagged for clearer drafting, data fields, and witness input before any formal action.

Ending: The chair closed the session by thanking presenters and announcing a short break before the next scheduled items, then said the committee will resume with witnesses and markup planning.