Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House Appropriations reviews omnibus youth bill to allow certified unaccompanied youth to access services without parental consent
Loading...
Summary
The House Appropriations Committee reviewed an omnibus bill that would remove a Reach Up asset limit, conserve certain Social Security benefits for children in DCF care, and create a certification that allows unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain IDs, medical care and housing without parental consent; the measure also tightens rules and reporting for restraint and transport of children in custody.
The House Appropriations Committee on March 18 took up an omnibus bill that would change how Vermont treats youths in transition, including new authority for certified unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain identification, health care and housing without parental consent.
Katie McGlenn, Legislative Council, told the committee the measure covers many topics: removing a $9,000 asset limit for Reach Up eligibility, protecting Social Security benefits for children in DCF care, establishing a certification process for unaccompanied youth, and tightening DCF policies on transport, restraint and seclusion. "The department shall not impose an asset limit for the purpose of initial and continuing eligibility for the Reach Up program," McGlenn said when summarizing the Reach Up change.
The bill would allow designated certifiers — for example, a school district homeless liaison, a director of a state-funded emergency shelter, or a continuum-of-care designee — to sign a standardized form that validates a youth's unaccompanied status. McGlenn said the bill requires a standardized form developed by Elevate Youth Services and the Vermont Coalition of Runaway Homeless Youth Services; the form would show qualifying circumstances, the certifier's signature and a confirmation the certifier completed human-trafficking training in the previous two years.
If issued, the certificate would permit a youth to pursue services without parental consent, including obtaining a non-driver identification card, learner's permit or operator's license; consent to health, dental and mental-health treatment; entering housing contracts or shelter placements; opening a bank account; applying for student loans; and accessing victim services. McGlenn said the bill directs the financial regulator to set minimum certification requirements so a bank, credit union or insurer can legally contact a youth who lacks a permanent physical address.
Committee members raised concerns about verification and parental rights. "Doesn't seem to be any law enforcement or other entity that would actually...identify who the person is...Is this a violation of any parental rights?" one committee member asked, expressing concern about whether non-law-enforcement certifiers can reliably determine homelessness or family status. McGlenn suggested the policy committee should address precise certification language and legal concerns, and the Judiciary Committee was reported to be reviewing legal issues separately.
The bill also restricts certain uses of children's Social Security benefits when DCF serves as representative payee: instead of using those benefits to offset state costs, the bill would conserve funds for the child's benefit in a trust or qualified ABLE account or use them for the child’s unmet needs, with exceptions to preserve federal means-tested benefit eligibility. John Gray, Legislative Council, said the treasurer's office would assist in establishing appropriate accounts and monitoring federal resource rules to avoid jeopardizing Supplemental Security Income eligibility.
The measure contains substantial changes to secure transport and restraint policy. It defines secure transport and restraint types, requires contracts to reflect transport standards, limits use of non-contracted law enforcement for transport to emergencies or court orders, and mandates supervisory review of any use of restraint during transport. New language prioritizes soft mechanical restraints as the first option and requires documentation when more restrictive restraints are used; the bill prohibits waist shackles on children 12 and younger and requires a documented showing that waist shackles were the sole means to prevent serious harm before their use on older children.
The bill requires DCF to post rates of restraint and secure transports and to provide an annual report to policy committees and the Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate with breakdowns by age, gender and race, number of mechanical restraints used, and whether law enforcement or private agencies conducted transports. A December one-time report is also required on how DCF is implementing secure-transport policies and oversight.
Supporters framed the package as child-protection and access-focused, while some members pressed for clearer language on certifier responsibilities and the scope of immunity for providers who rely on the certificate. McGlenn said entities contracting with a certified youth are immune from liability when relying on the certificate unless they acted with gross negligence, but members flagged ambiguity about whether certifiers themselves would receive the same protection.
The Judiciary Committee will complete its review and return to the Appropriations Committee; presenters noted some provisions — particularly those affecting out-of-state residential placements — have delayed effective dates to allow agencies to implement changes. The bill contains varied effective dates for different sections.
The committee did not vote on the bill at the March 18 meeting. Presenters and members said they expect further review by Judiciary and follow-up work in committee before any final action.
