Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Legislative committee reviews S.193 amendment on forensic facility, medical director role and Dale commitments
Summary
A Judiciary committee reviewed draft 4.1 of S.193, which revises how defendants found incompetent to stand trial would be routed to a proposed forensic facility and, in some cases, to commitment or supervision by Dale. Debate centered on 6‑month/60‑day review timing, a vacant AHS medical director post named in the bill, program availability and which agency should supervise releases.
A legislative Judiciary committee on May 5 reviewed proposed changes to S.193 (draft 4.1) that would set procedures for placing people found incompetent to stand trial into a new forensic facility and, in some cases, later committing them to programs run or supervised by Dale.
Eric Fitzpatrick of the Office of Legislative Council led the committee through the draft and said the amendment keeps the existing placement criteria (serious offense, held without bail or a qualifying condition creating substantial risk, and not currently receiving treatment) but changes when people who fit Act 248‑style definitions would be diverted to Dale. "Rather than excluding that population completely," Fitzpatrick said, individuals would enter the restorability process and only be referred to Dale if a court later finds them nonrestorable.
Why that timing matters: under the draft, an initial placement at the forensic facility triggers a six‑month review measured from admission and then subsequent reviews tied to court orders; a restorability finding can be requested at any time. If a person is found nonrestorable, a 60‑day hearing would focus on whether the person is dangerous. Fitzpatrick said if the state demonstrates someone is dangerous and nonrestorable, treatment would continue at the forensic facility; if not dangerous and nonrestorable, the person could be released under supervised conditions.
The draft names an Agency of Human Services (AHS) medical director who would certify restorability, initiate reviews and request sooner review periods when clinically indicated. Committee members raised a practical concern: the specific medical director position referenced in the bill is not currently filled. A member asked where authority would land if the post were vacant; Fitzpatrick said he would check statutory interpretation but suggested the secretary of AHS could designate someone in practice.
Members also debated the substance of the six‑month timing. One lawmaker urged caution, saying similar "touch‑base" provisions in other states are often routine check‑ins rather than full competency evaluations and questioned whether the bill requires repeated competency evaluations without a triggering clinical change. Fitzpatrick responded that the frequency and nature of reevaluations are policy choices for the committee, and noted U.S. Supreme Court precedent sets constitutional limits on how long someone may be held while restoration is attempted.
The draft adds a more detailed forensic risk assessment that must address treatment and supervision recommendations to mitigate risk and include an examiner opinion about whether the person meets the Act 248 definition (a person in need of custody, care and habilitation). For individuals the court finds both nonrestorable and dangerous, the bill allows treatment to continue at the forensic facility with annual reviews (12 months) unless medical staff recommend sooner review; the risk assessment could recommend supervised housing or other "least restrictive" options when appropriate.
Committee members pressed for clarity on who would supervise released individuals. Fitzpatrick said the court's release order would specify the supervising authority — which could be the commissioner of mental health, Dale, or the department of health depending on the person's qualifying condition — and the medical director would have authority to certify if someone on release becomes dangerous and should return to the facility.
Witnesses from Dale and the Department of Mental Health urged changes and clarified operational realities. A Dale representative told the committee that Act 248 custody is narrowly targeted to people with intellectual disabilities, while Vermont's broader developmental disabilities population may be eligible for home‑and‑community‑based Medicaid services. Dale said it can provide supervision and arrange placements (shared living, group homes or more intensive 24/7 supervision), but assembling appropriate, often isolated program placements can take time and sometimes requires legislative or administrative funding. The witness said the proposed framework gives Dale a useful tool to develop placements but warned the state should avoid leaving individuals in a forensic facility indefinitely if no designated program is created.
Emily Haas, commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, asked the committee to distinguish custody from supervision more clearly in statute and to explicitly include the Department of Corrections among agencies collaborating on supervision orders. "The Department of Corrections has been left off the list of individuals who are at the table," Haas said, urging language that reflects existing shared‑supervision partnerships between clinical providers and corrections supervision.
The committee did not vote on the draft and scheduled continuation of testimony for the next morning at 9:30 a.m.
