Senate committee hears split testimony on H.657 over definitions, restraint limits and transport rules

The Senate Health and Welfare Committee heard hours of testimony April 24 on H.657, a bill that would change how the Department for Children and Families (DCF) treats unaccompanied minors and regulates restraints, seclusion and transportation.

Chair opened the session and said the committee would focus on provisions in H.657 relating to services for youth and the department's authority to certify unaccompanied minors. Testimony brought into relief two fault lines: one over the bill’s definitions and certification process for youth without parental support, and another over a transport provision that would bar use of waist‑chain restraints for children 12 and younger.

Renee McInness, policy analyst for the Vermont Family Alliance, urged the committee to narrow the statutory definition of ‘unaccompanied minor.’ McInness asked lawmakers to remove the phrase “lack of financial support” from the abandonment standard, saying financial hardship does not always reflect parental incapacity to consent. She also asked the committee to clarify when foster care is “deemed inappropriate,” and to move responsibility for standardized certification forms from a named contractor to DCF. “We would request some further definition there,” McInness said, calling for safeguards so certification forms are not fraudulent.

Representatives of law enforcement and prosecutors argued against an absolute statutory ban on certain restraints. Kim McManus of the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs flagged section 9, which addresses transportation and includes an age‑based prohibition on waist shackles. McManus warned that a fixed statutory ban could create safety risks for children, officers and the public and urged that use‑of‑force policy — overseen by the Criminal Justice Council — be the place to set operational rules.

Windham County Sheriff Mark Anderson, speaking for the Vermont Sheriff’s Association, described waist or belly chains as a restraint that can reduce movement, lower the risk of escape and be less physically stressful than extended handcuffing behind the back during long transports. “They generally come with a few different caveats of what they do. First and foremost, they limit our movement,” Anderson said, arguing that size and body type make an age cutoff imperfect. He asked the committee to strike the age lines in the bill and to instead reference the statewide use‑of‑force policy.

The Office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocate (OCYFA) strongly supported many parts of H.657 but warned that some provisions could be harmful if drafted as hard caps. Matthew Bernstein, the office’s director, said the bill’s restraint and seclusion rules and its reporting requirements were critical steps toward protecting youth. At the same time Bernstein expressed concern about a one‑hour seclusion limit in non‑transport settings and urged care in how time limits are set. “A seclusion for an hour for a small child could be traumatizing to the point of creating permanent damage,” he said.

Bernstein pushed for greater transparency, saying his office has sought video of incidents that allegedly caused injuries in out‑of‑state facilities and has had difficulty obtaining them. He said his office’s annual report includes case‑level data showing reported restraints, including six children under 10 in the reporting period, but he added the office believes underreporting is common and that the bill’s reporting provisions would improve accuracy.

Officials from DCF signaled conditional agreement with several suggested edits. Deputy Commissioner Eric Radkkey said the department supports the intent of amendments recommended by McManus and Anderson to balance youth safety and staff safety. Tyler Allen, system‑of‑care director at DCF, described typical restraint scenarios as short interventions used when a youth poses an immediate danger following repeated assaults, and emphasized that programs need documented incident reports and quicker access for oversight.

The witnesses and committee also discussed how H.657 might affect contracts with out‑of‑state providers. DCF staff and others said Vermont relies on regional out‑of‑state placements for specialized care — roughly 90 youth in residential care at a time, about half out of state — and that some providers resist contractual terms such as sending video recordings off‑site. Bernstein and DCF staff warned that strict statutory requirements could limit contracting options and make in‑state capacity building more costly, while also noting the public‑policy value of baseline protections and reporting.

Committee members asked witnesses to submit written testimony and data tables; the chair said DCF would be asked to return next week. No vote was taken at the hearing.

What happens next: The committee will accept written testimony and may consider drafting amendments that reference the statewide use‑of‑force policy, clarify the bill’s definitions of abandonment and unaccompanied youth, add fraud exceptions to liability language or create explicit data flows to the child‑advocate office. The bill will return for further committee consideration.