Witnesses flag report gaps and liability risks in H657 for unaccompanied youth

Kim McManis, representing the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, told the House Judiciary committee that her office has “no issue” with adding providers under 33 V.S.A. §4908 to the bill’s unlawful-sheltering exception but warned the department cannot, by itself, produce the full report the bill requests. "We tracked last year that we had 12 court ordered juvenile transports," McManis said, noting the department’s records cover court-ordered transports but not non‑court transports done for DCF or AHS under contract.

The exchange focused on section nine of H657 (page 21 in the circulated draft), which calls for an annual report on secured transports that would include age, gender, race, types of transports and whether mechanical restraints were used. McManis urged the committee to tailor the report language to what each agency can realistically collect and recommended small wording edits — for example, asking that the bill require "if a restraint is used, the type of restraint" rather than the current phrasing "when applicable the type of mechanical restraint." She also flagged inconsistent terminology in the draft, saying the bill switches between “minor” and “child” and that the committee should standardize that usage.

McManis said the department will submit a one‑page memo from Executive Director Dumont outlining the practical difficulties of making the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs the sole entity responsible for the report, and suggested the committee consider DCF or the agency requesting transports as alternate sources for non‑court data. She also raised a question about how demographic data would be recorded: whether race and gender would be those perceived by transport personnel or self‑reported, and whether courts record such details for delinquency matters.

The hearing turned to a separate but related drafting concern when a witness raised alarms about a negligence‑immunity sentence in the bill. Adam (identified in the early record as a lobbyist for the Vermont Association for the Justice) said the clause "when we immunize negligence, you're telling an actor they can be unreasonably careless," and described hypothetical scenarios in which reliance on a certificate without due diligence could leave vulnerable young people exposed. Using a car‑dealer example, he argued that an immunity framed around the "determination to contract" could let a seller avoid responsibility even if a certificate had been falsified or the seller failed to check its validity.

Adam recommended two drafting approaches: either strike the immunity sentence entirely or tighten it by inserting the word "certified" so that protections apply only where a youth has been certified under the bill’s process. He also floated an alternative affirmative standard — language stating that a provider "may reasonably rely on" a certificate — which would protect good‑faith reliance while preserving recourse for grossly negligent conduct.

Committee members and witnesses discussed the narrowness of the immunity language as written: multiple participants said it appears focused on the contractual decision to enter a transaction with a certified youth, not on subsequent quality of care or housing conditions, but they warned ambiguity could be exploited in litigation. The exchange included practical drafting suggestions aimed at preserving access for youth while preventing overly broad shields against liability.

Representative Van Donahghue clarified that sheriffs who perform judicial transports were not intended to be the source for data on DCF subcontract transports and explained that "minor" was deliberate language intended to include 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds treated as adults in certain contexts. She said the committee should coordinate with DCF and individual sheriff’s departments to obtain the full picture of transports outside of court orders.

The committee did not vote on H657 during this hearing. McManis said the department would provide a memo detailing data limitations and the committee discussed possible drafting edits to clarify reporting duties and to narrow or replace the immunity language before further action.