Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome back, everyone. 01:45, Friday, February 13. Final order of business for the week is an introduction walk through and witness testimony on h five one four, an act relating to the procedures governing the change of a minor's legal name. Starting off with us is legislative counsel.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm fantastic. Good to see you again. Ten minutes really flew by there. Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel. You have in front of you h five fourteen, which is a short form, so I can get through the words on the page fairly quickly, tell you, the statement of purpose here. The bill proposes to amend statutes governing vital records and court instruments that are used to change the legal name of a minor, and the proposal is to allow a minor change the minor's name with the consent of one parent or guardian. When I did some background research on the procedures that are in statute, it was actually very difficult for me to pinpoint where the legal issue was. The reason being that the Title 18 Vital Records statutes do not have an express provision requiring consent of both parents, for example, to amend or correct a birth certificate. It's also difficult for me to find in Title 15 where the issue might lie with the probate court's authority to change, authorize a name change, which is required for some alterations or corrections of a vital record.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, although I would say Just do

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: the search bar for 514. 514, okay. Okay, that's what I was looking for. Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, in your search bar.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: So, regain the momentum of just saying, I don't have very much to offer. And one of the things that the, committee should endeavor to find out is whether this is an issue that actually exists in statute within the province of your control or whether this is an issue with the rules of probate procedure or the forms that are used by the probate court. In fact, the only place where I could identify in doing background research that there was an express requirement for consent of two parents was in a form used by the probate court. Could not find an express call for that in the rules. There are some notes and appendices within the probate court rules that do mention consent of parents, but I couldn't find an express binding requirement that couldn't be navigated either by the courts or by the individuals might be affected by this. So if the committee, with its great investigatory power, is able to find out where the issue might lie and where the underlying conflict is, I will be ready and able to amend statute for you as necessary, draft language.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Brad Waters Evans.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Who makes the probate court rules? The courts. Yeah. Okay. They just have their own

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: It's part of the Okay. Rules of court procedure.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Okay.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So they could make or not make that wrong if they wanted to.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You could not compel the courts to change those rules though. I one of the things that I wondered about in my apologies in not being very fresh on this because this was quite a while ago that I was looking through all this information was whether there was something implied in statutes related to vital records or in title 15 related to court documents that the court was interpreting as part of its rulemaking and form producing authority. But it wasn't entirely clear to me.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Does the presence of something on a form automatically make it a rule?

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: If it's being enforced by the agency that requires completion and submission of the form, yes. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Who gives them the authority

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: to make the rules? Do we give them the authority to make the rules? As a coequal branch of government, separate and distinct from yours, they have their own independent authority to adopt their internal procedures, including the procedures of the court. Okay. Now, in title 15, there are requirements that the general assembly has set up and I'd be happy to work with the judiciary attorneys on the legislative council team to come in and give you some background on where there's overlapping authority. But in general, for things like rules, fees, and the regulation of officers of the court, including attorneys, belongs to the judiciary.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Morgan than a Hooper of

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Just real quick, quick. Tucker, did I hear you correct? I think I heard or you inferred in there. So this is removing it from

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: both parents to one, essentially. So and I'm sure that the representatives from the court will be able to detail some of this, but what I was able to find in some of the notes and appendices around the probate court rules is that there is acknowledgment that you could have approval of one parent, but there will always be notice provided to the other parent. That is what I'm saying. Certainly more of an expert on it than I am. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Well, we'll ask you. And is that as a good Waving off the question from Hooper

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: in Burlington? Yes. Let's take a look.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Anything else for council? No hands. Alright. So I think I wanna go next to Brenda Siegel, who is one of the interested parties within this proposal.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: How are you doing, Brenda?

[Brenda Siegel (Executive Director, End Homelessness Vermont; testifying as a parent)]: Okay. How are you? Lose my eyesight, so Thank you. So for the record, I'm Brenda Siegel, the Executive Director of End Homelessness Vermont. But today I'm here in my capacity as a mom, a survivor, and a mom of a survivor. Representative Lalonde is the sponsor of this bill that asked me to introduce it. So this is my first time doing anything like this, and so please forgive me if I don't do it well. Currently, the practice, as you just heard, is that you need both parents' permission. After some research with Representative Lalonde, as you just heard also, he did find that it's a form. It seems to be just a form, not a law, and potentially not even a rule. So this bill would make clear in statute that a minor child can change their last name through with one parent's permission. Throughout Vermont, there are minor children, I know that we're not the only ones, whom are being raised by one parent or guardian. However, they are carrying a last name related to a parent who has abandoned them. In some cases, that parent is a parent who abused them or abandoned them for other horrific reasons. An example of this is my own family, but I want to be clear that my son, Ajna Siegel, wants to tell his own story, and so I'm just going give a brief overview of the history to for the history of the bill. And he but he would like to be the one to testify. And I would ask that the committee please hear from him as he lived through this. My son was abused by his father's girlfriend. His last name was hyphenated. When the court ruled that the person who assaulted him could no longer be at the visits, his father chose to abandon him at the age of five. He heard, from him one other time on his sixth birthday and never again. In fact, his father's attorney contacted mine and told him that he did not want to know anything about him unless it was an emergency that required his knowledge. Fast forward to the age of 12, my son asked to change his last name. What I found out was that I would need a signature, or notice, to my son's father, I. E, essentially permission from his absent father to do this. This was what made this more complicated was the fact that my son's father was also extremely abusive and dangerous to me. And to contact him would have put me in harm's way. I informed my son we could not yet, with no details. He brought it up again between when he got his permit and his license. I met with an attorney who agreed to look for his father. I spoke to Ajna, and he said that he was afraid it would put me in harm's way. And it would have, so he didn't want me to do that. A child should not have to even think of those things. So we waited until he was an adult, but the expense was immense, so we could not do it until he was 23. It cost us a total of $800 to change all of his documents, and we still haven't changed his birth certificate. For our family, who lives just over the poverty line, that was crushing. But worth it when my son sent me photos of his name, Osma Siegel, and told me that he cried at the relief of knowing he no longer had to carry this. This bill gives children the autonomy to choose the names that they have that they have association with, and when someone carries a name that is that is associated with abuse, abandonment, or other traumatic situations. A person should have the right to liberate themselves and separate themselves from those situations so that they can move on and heal. This is a short form bill, so the details are up to you. The intent is not to allow a minor child to change their name willy nilly. It is for a minor child to be able to change their last name after they are abandoned or before they're and I know those details aren't in there before there are relevant documents, diplomas, passports, licenses, insurance cards, and so on that all carry a name that carries with them immense trauma. I have recommendations for what guidelines might be in place, and I'm just going to say a few, and he will say more if he comes in to testify. A timeline of abandonment, perhaps five years or the age of 14, which is before a lot of those documents come into play, whichever comes first. And the bill would still require one parent's or guardian's signature. So we're not asking them to be able to do it on their own. I want to be clear that since we've experienced this, because this bill would not change the situation for my son, I've learned that so many families who are experiencing the same thing, both within my work and Homelessness Vermont, and I think, and many others, friends and peers. A few people that the committee could hear from are Ajna Siegel, my son again, Tamara Hodge, Megan Lasage. I can give you contact for them, and I can also provide a list of so many more. Thank you all, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any questions for the witness right now? No, thank you very much, Amanda. Thank you.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Terry,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: how are you?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: How are you doing, Teri?

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I'm fine. Good afternoon, everybody. Teri Corsohn, Senior Co Administrator. And I'd like to actually thank you all for bringing this matter to my attention, because in all honesty, I didn't realize and I wasn't aware that there was an ambiguity. People have mentioned a form and I kind of had copied everything off. It actually isn't in a form, it's just an informational sheet Because in my understanding is that both parents consent is not required under the rule or under case authority, which basically sets forth the factors that a probate court considers when there's a petition for the name change for a minor. Presently, there's a very brief statute, 15 BSA section eight twelve, that indicates a minor may change his or her name by some person who, and it references the guardianship statute, which has since evolved to include natural parents, since they are guardians of the children, may petition the court to change a name. That's basically the only statutory reference to it now. As Tucker made mention, he couldn't find any explicit authority that said you need to have two parents consent. My understanding is you do not. And in fact, probate courts have regularly allowed minor changes of name with just one parent's consent. I spoke with probate judge Carly Anderson, and there's basically a list of factors. Ultimately, the primary factor is in the child's best interest. But otherwise, look at things such as whether there is embarrassment caused by or confusion caused by the use of another name. The most common occurrence when a child's a minor child's name is changed is following a divorce. If the child then is living with the custodial parent and changes the name to the custodial parent. So, that's kind of the usual scenario. So, I'm really very glad to hear of this so that it can be clarified. That's my again my understanding the statute doesn't require two parents names my assumption after learning yesterday of this bill and looking at it and seeing how I could you know add anything to the discussion. I assumed that the reason for the bill was in the short form it says this bill proposes to allow a minor to change the minors name. So I thought you were seeking to change what the statute says now that a minor may change his or her name by some person. So the way the petition is set up vis a vis that language is someone typically one of the parents or guardian petitions the court for the minor's change of name. So I thought you were trying to say, oh, it doesn't have to be a parent, the minor himself or herself can petition the court. So that's what I just kind of assumed, but I understand now it's more to say one parent instead of two, but in all honesty, the law doesn't now require two. And the only reference is it's not even a form. It's just on an informational sheet. On one informational sheet and actually on our website, there's a whole description of what needs to be done and the forms are referred to. And that doesn't indicate that two parents' names are needed. And in fact, on the forms themselves, there's a place for the parent to say, I either consent or I don't consent. And then what the judge does typically, this is based on probate judge Crowley Anderson telling me, but he said that typically when there's a petition to change a minor's name, he always schedules a hearing in order to learn what the reason is. And you know, he said, you know, most times it's along the lines of a divorce situation. They might want to have the same name as their siblings or half siblings or a custodial parent with whom they live. So they're routinely granted whether the other party consents or not. So anyway, I just appreciate the opportunity to kind of clarify that and I feel terrible that there was, you know, a clarification based on not even a form. And also to just clarify, it's the Vermont Supreme Court who has rule making authority, and that's always done in conjunction with the legislative committee on judicial rules. There's a whole process for when rules are promulgated in each of the different divisions. There's rules of criminal procedure, civil procedure, family procedure, probate procedure, for example, evidence. And if there's an amendment, a proposed amendment, there's a whole, it's vetted by the rules committees, then there's a public comment period, they look to it, it goes to the legislative committee on judicial rules, ultimately the Supreme Court has the rulemaking authority, but it's after that process has gone through. And there is a probate, the modern rule of probate procedure 80.6, which has to do with change of name, but it basically makes reference to the current statute 15 BSA eight twelve, that only says a minor may change his or her name by some person, and then again there's no requirement that there be consent of both parents in the statute.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, and thank you for doing that back end homework on that. That's valuable for our conversation here.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: Well, and I don't know. I understand also your or the testimony was given in terms of the challenges if there isn't a communication or reasons to not communicate, because there is typically a requirement that the other parent be notified if there's a petition. But whether or not there would be exceptions, with requirement along those lines, there's always the opportunity to ask a judge to waive a particular provision, and then to explain why. The judge would have the discretion of either waiving the notice requirement or not. That would happen kind of it's implicit, but maybe if you're looking at clarifying the statute, that may be something to, I guess, consider, again, that's a policy for you all, but right now there is a requirement which you normally would have for anything involving a minor that both parents be notified. But if there are circumstances where it's a public or if there's a safety or risk, you know, component, I assume that would be something that right now as it presently stands, the probate judge would review that and evaluate it and, you know, would I assume have the discretion to waive that notice requirement under circumstances that the judge felt lowered to that.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Representative Hango.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. And I just needed to ask this question, which I think I know the answer to those hearings that a judge may have when they're petitioned for this, they're confidential and not open to the public. Is that correct? Because it involves juveniles? No, I don't.

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: I would imagine they'd be public. I mean, hearings in the juvenile docket are all confidential. And in the probate court adoption proceedings are confidential. Otherwise, are typically open to the public. So I did assume wrong and I was just going back to Ms. Siegel's testimony of how her son was afraid for her safety. So just wondering if these hearings were to happen and someone who the family didn't want to notify found out about it what happens then so yeah through scenarios in my mind right in that I think it's same thing you would if there were circumstances that you would ask the court to waive the normal procedure you would explain the reasons why the judge would then determine. You. Sure.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for Cheamy?

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: No, Another kind of avenue, and I don't know how often there's a probate division oversight committee that meets, for example, and it may be something that they would also be able to make recommendations or because part of their goal is to clear up ambiguities or clarify where there's the need for clarification, anything involving probate statutes or rules. There's also a probate rules committee, but I think probably the probate division oversight committee would be, and I can check and see when they meet next to bring this to their attention, so that they're aware that there's a lack of clarity. If wasn't able to find something, think that shows that it would be helpful to have it clarified.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, no, it's a good point. Any other questions? Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Helping us understand this

[Teri Corsones (State Court Administrator)]: to see what might be the best way to bring about the clarification.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: No. I appreciate that. I really do. Sure. Alright.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. You, Terry. Alright, team. That's a wrap to the week. We will be back here Tuesday. But, yeah, we'll kick things back up Tuesday, the seventeenth, and we definitely have a full slug of work, well as a couple of assemblies and also a joint hearing. So we got a good mix of stuff, but we did really good work honing in some big bill projects this week, and I feel confident we'll start booking some stuff out for next week. Go team. Alright. With that, you can take