Committee examines H.657 provisions to let unaccompanied youth access care, with limited immunity for providers

The House Judiciary Committee on March 18 reviewed language in H.657 intended to let certified "unaccompanied youth" access services — including medical care, housing and employment-related contracts — without parental consent and to provide limited immunity to entities and professionals who contract with them.

Representative McGill, sponsor of the section under review, told the committee the provision mirrors language used in other states and seeks to lower barriers for teens who lack a parent or guardian. "This is a bill about about kids," she said, and added that 33 states have medical provisions and 18 of those also authorize access to shelter and accompanying services for unaccompanied youth.

McGill said the bill focuses on older teens and that the committee adopted 16- and 17-year-olds for this mechanism because, she said, "that's where their involvement with youth under 18 kind of becomes a little more hands-off" in available services. She told members Vermont tracked about 50 unaccompanied youth pre-COVID and about 132 in the last reported school year, but cautioned the figure likely undercounts the true population.

At the hearing the committee concentrated on the bill's immunity clause. The language under review would make ‘‘an entity, provider, or health-care professional who contracts with a certified unaccompanied youth’’ immune from liability for the decision to enter the contract "unless they acted with gross negligence." A committee member pressed on what the phrase "determination to contract" captures in practice and where the immunity applies, particularly in clinical and housing settings.

McGill and staff explained the statutory certificate functions as the state's evidence that a youth may enter agreements typically reserved to adults. As one presenter summarized, the certificate allows a landlord or provider to rely on the authorized document "in lieu of the parent's consent when they're under 18" for transactions such as leases or health-care consent forms. The immunity is meant to prevent providers from hesitating to serve youth out of fear of civil liability.

Committee members voiced concerns about overbroad protection. One member asked whether the immunity could allow a provider to perform procedures without adult guidance; McGill and witnesses stressed the immunity does not protect grossly negligent conduct and that certifiers and service providers should continue due diligence. "We are just trying to remove some of the barriers to the most basic essential components of the pyramid of life," McGill said, describing the intent to connect youth with services while guarding against exploitation.

The bill names specific certifiers who could validate a youth's status: district homeless liaisons funded through McKinney-Vento, appropriate school administrative staff, directors of state-funded emergency shelters, directors of runaway and homeless youth programs, continuum-of-care lead agencies or designees, the chief juvenile defender or designee, and representatives of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. The committee discussed how those entities already have ties to service networks and can assist youth with case management, education and employment pathways.

Staff counsel noted the bill does not alter the Interstate Compact for Juveniles; when a youth is found to be from another state, return protocols under the compact would still apply. Members also raised funding questions; Representative McGill said the Joint Fiscal Office called the portion under review "de minimis," though larger fiscal changes tied to other parts of H.657 (including changes in rep-payee arrangements) could have second-year impacts and require appropriation review.

The committee did not take a final vote on the sections discussed and scheduled additional witnesses for a subsequent session. Representative McGill said the committee will reconvene to hear more testimony and technical detail before moving the bill forward.

Why it matters: If enacted, the proposal would create a pathway for vulnerable teens to receive time-sensitive care and housing supports when parental consent is unavailable, while carving a civil-liability safe harbor for providers who rely on state certification. The balance between access and adequate safeguards was a central thread of questioning during the hearing.

What’s next: The committee recessed and set follow-up testimony from additional witnesses and staff; members signaled they will return to the immunity and certification topics before any final action.