Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to House of Human Services. We are picking up H-six 57, our Omnibus DCF bill. Are going to pick up on by the way, there is a new version that's posted on the website that Katie has provided for us. I think before we go through the changes, we'll go through Anne's sections first, and then come back and then kind of do a run through the whole thing. Okay. Okay. So, Anne, turn it over to you.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Great. And the new part for my sections is probably helpful to use because as everyone knows, work in progress. So I've been trying to, you know, update Katie with some of those tweaks, you know, yesterday just to bring up those updates. So you should use new version because otherwise I'll have to be walking you through what the change is without seeing it. Tell us what page it starts on. Yes, so it starts on page 16. Top of page 16. So the whole first section is on restraints. This is where there's a lot of new language rather than just imitating what Nextdoor had done, healthcare had done with the parallel statute for mental illness, because after testimony seemed really clear, we needed to make things a little bit more structured sort of anticipated. So if you start from the top, the first change was an alignment that we had in there before, prevents rather than reasonably avoids, because in fact, the context of that statement that we want it to prevent physical and psychological trauma, it's introduced by saying reasonable and appropriate measures consistent with public safety. So it's not saying you can absolutely prevent it, and that's the same language in the mental health one. The second part, gender B, instead of just saying the authority to select, it's making it a little more formal, designate the professional or law enforcement officers doing the transport. The contract shall require adherence. That's existing in actually in session law from a few years, so we're putting it right into this section. And then transportation services with non contracted law enforcement officers shall only be authorized in emergency situations or by court order, as we heard yesterday. Sometimes the court orders a transport, and we can't dictate how the court order says, it has to happen. Then next, there's some language that moves around. So C now is replaced just for sequential order with, I think you'll remember Representative Eric Maguire? Thank you. Representative Maguire was pointing out the importance of training. And it's not as if we could create a whole new training certification, but this just indicates that the department will provide materials that outline what the legal requirements are for secure transportation when they're making these contracts and get verification from those agencies that they would have given the education to their staff. If there are issues that come along where there were disagreements between the Department of Children and Families and the advocates office, I will point those out. So these are all things that everyone was good with. Next, making it clear, which was existing protocol, but that secure transport, calling in one of these agencies rather than the department doing their own transport, has to be necessary for the safety of the child. You don't do it otherwise, which is current practice, but it's putting it in statute. We keep the existing law on the policy of the state to not use mechanical restraints routinely. This is my poster child for the old practices which existed before this bill first passed. And then we have a section where we're talking about, but sometimes it is necessary. You can't say we're just never going to use restraints because there are real emergencies or situations where transport has to occur and there might be a real risk either to the public or to the child. So, it's sort of phased in terms of making sure that any step that escalates the degree of intervention is directly documented and explained. And so the first part is if the person who's designated the transport person believes the risk of serious physical harm to the child or others requires the use of mechanical restraints before or during, because it might happen while it's underway, document, and it's going to be changed to be shall provide rather than documentation provided to, I actually printed out because I have my notes on it, the old one,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: but I think you have shall provide, right? Shall be provided.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Shall be provided, okay, to the department by the designated individual, which includes a description as to why less restrictive interventions could not be attempted or why they were unsuccessful, which is kind of our standard language around seclusion or restraint. And they already do a form where they check off, and this will be added. I've had a lot of conversations with Tyler Allen, the high end director. I've seen the form. They check off what they're doing. There'll be a little added check and a line where they can write down why this decision was necessary when the sheriff's office decides that it is necessary. The next sentence, law enforcement or private agency shall use software syncs as a first option if they need to use restraints, and others can't be utilized if they're adequate. And then the last threshold, if mechanical restraints are used, the documentation that's provided to the department has to include that added description of why the soft restraints were inadequate for safety. And then the commissioner shall ensure supervisory review of the documentation. The next piece comes to the first one where there really has been a disagreement, and that is the issue of shackles. The initial draft I had worked on said the use of waste shackles are not permitted. End of story. I prefer that. Well, and that's why it's up for discussion because the department is not comfortable with saying that they're totally banned because they feel that there are rare but occasional circumstances where that is the only safe way. And that's why the added language is just putting it as an additional documented sole means of preventing serious physical harm. So it would require the extra documentation, but it would be allowed to happen. Then the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate strongly opposes having that move forward here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let's just have a little bit of discussion about that point now, I guess. First off, I want to make sure I understand what waste shackles mean. Are waste shackles, the thing goes around the waist and then also around the arms.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, usually connects two handcuffs. This would be, and we have a definition of them, which I can read. Okay. Definitions.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, think the other Oh, thing

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it's right on that same page. Waste shackles means a metal mechanical restraint device, typically a chain, used around the waist and to which the child's wrists may be chained or cuffed. Yeah, okay, that's what I was thinking. They do now exist as a soft restraint version.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is there a way to because I realize that these provisions

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: cover a wide age range. Well, it also recovers people. Delinquency as well as neglect. So I guess

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what I'm trying to get at is I really don't want to see young people even being allowed to have waist shackles. I don't want to see something like this. But I can understand that things shift when you have males in particular getting older and getting more muscular and having more strength. And I so I mean, there's part of me that understands both points of view, but I am just wondering if there's a way to strike the compromise here that references child's age.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Structurally, it would be easy to do. Just to reference, it could simply say the use of waste shackles are prohibited unless documented, sole means of preventing to a child 15 or over or something like that. Yeah, go ahead Brenda. That was my question. I was a substitute teacher for years, and there was a fight in the cafeteria.

[Brenda Steady (Member)]: Those boys can be pretty strong. You wouldn't want to put law enforcement at risk.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's- Maybe in high school,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I couldn't even get near them and I was trying to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: break it up. The way it's written right now, any aged child could be. Right, and I agree with you. That's right. Like first grader, but like high school. Yeah, pretty scary. Me call in Deputy Commissioner Rutland.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: My name Eric Maguire, Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division. Rutland, and I think that might be a reasonable accommodation as we haven't had legal look through it, I'm willing to take that back. Okay. I think you can talk about the age. I think they might be even too old, I'm thinking maybe 10

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: or something like that. Well, I know that downstairs in judiciary, they typically make a cut off at twelve. And they have a bill coming out this week at twelve.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: And that makes sense.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it seems still young for me, I'll be honest. But if you could, maybe if Anne and y'all could work on a compromise on that, that inserts an age, I can't see it being used on or being available to use on very young children who can get pretty out of control. I know. I just

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, as I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: said, I couldn't do it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I wasn't even aware that now they do have soft restraints. They have them as ankle and also waist, those actually look in a lot of ways more invasive because you're kind of almost And straight back at I don't think anybody would want to see those. But for a young child who was totally out of control, that would be- It might, and I feel bad for the little guys, but some of them slam their head, like slam their heads in the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: walls, and I've seen

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it. Could be for their safety,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not to do it as a restraint.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: What some of them, I mean, they take their heads and they slam them and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they're throwing forward. There definitely is that. And there's definitely that's why the training protection. Right. That's why the training part is really important because there there are methods to provide support to not just children, but children and adults that you would try first before going to that. I've seen them at school take their arms and fold them behind their back, but

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: their heads could break their neck. Yeah, so there's been some pretty things I've seen. Just understand we're only talking about the, they're in an extreme situation, it's limited to that, but even a young child could have, their wrists, their ankles, and in a seat belt. Right, I don't So those are mine. Yeah. No, I can see both sides.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I think Doug had his hand up and then

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: We've go got to a place that addresses point

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: of Okay, Esme.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, I was just starting to dig into it, and I'm sure the department has done this plenty already, but best practice recommendations for restraint in particular from the American Psychiatric Association and other groups. And so we'd be making sure that we integrate some of those from the experts too, versus us deciding. All of the things on restraint and seclusion in facilities, there are standards of care, they're

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: international, But transportation, I'm not familiar with a lot of other, where it's a different kind of setting. You're out in the open. I mean, there's, in other words, more that you may need to have to do for safety than when you're in a building and you have more staff around and so forth. Okay, so

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just to keep us moving, Anne will chat with

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the DCF folks and come up with language here that inserts an age. Just quickly, actually, Esme was hitting a point that

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: I was going to get to, strengths are pretty much structured and least restrictive use. Fully age has nothing to do with the assessment that's made to put an individual in whatever restraint is appropriate. And what mean by that is everybody's trained in the structure, the use of it. And if the assessment is made by the person that's working with the youth and saying, well, hey, this is the least restrictive. That's the first approach. What is the least restrictive to manage the situation? But if you need to go down to those level of restraints, age really doesn't factor on it. Yeah, I agree. We can agree or disagree.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I understand

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: both flip side of the court. But if I'm in a position where I'm addressing something, the age does not factor into the current situation at hand on how I'm responding.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I totally understand and don't disagree with the logic and the sort of methodical assessment of a situation. So I totally agree with that. I also know, because I've experienced it in my own school district, for instance, that where we had the highest use of seclusion and restraint in the state at one point in time, that because it was available and because it had become normalized, if you will, and I'm not saying the use of shackles is going to become, waste shackles is going to become normalized. Don't get me wrong on that. But people didn't go through the steps that you're just talking about. They went from A to Z, and went to the most restrictive without actually having gone through the other steps until, frankly, we had a change in leadership and we had professional development in the training that you were talking about and sort of created a different paradigm for the staff who, it was traumatizing for them as well. And I think that's the thing that to understand people doing these things, particularly when we're talking about with youth, it's a difficult situation for everybody in

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Buffalo. I know. Yeah, I know.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You've been there. You've been there. I know you've been there. But

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: you would hit a point though that I was attempting to make. That structure that you don't go from zero to 10. There's a reason why all of those mechanisms are put into place. There are reasons why the protocols, procedures, structured standards are put into place. If you follow them, it mitigates these events from the cards.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. Agreed. I agree on that.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah. And on the publication side of things, there's some good, although maybe not for all forms of transportation, like for EMS specifically, there's some good blood.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So actually, because we sort of have it resolved, they didn't bring this up. EMF's folks had reached out and said they may need to testify. They were worried that this would, because they do have their own protocols, which actually is more permissive in terms of the needs for restraints at times, we need different set of rules. In fact, this would not apply But, to children, right, but they, and just like emergency rooms or inpatient facility as well, have their own regulations about when they can or can't that are sort of well established and where this is a different situation, but it wouldn't apply to them. Could use chemical restraints. Well, we

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: had somebody from the sheriff's department come in and We did yesterday.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, that was the sheriff's department? It was. I didn't know that one.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I usually know some of them. Where's the deals? Where was that sheriff's department from? He was the head of the department You of never have people that are hands on? Actually, Anne has done that. Yes. I haven't seen any of my friends here.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: All right. Yeah, I realize I have my notes on what the changes were, but it'd be better if I just

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because they're all highlighted for us. Exactly. It'd be better if

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I just go straight to the same one that you're all looking at as I walked through it. Okay, so the next part is data collection. And it's pretty straightforward. It only adds, I think, a little bit to what is already the existing data collection that you may recall, they hadn't set up their computer program to keep up with it. And so it took a long time to get the data, but they now have it set. The issue that did come up here with some dispute is I had drafted this as all of this information being gathered on any child where they use secure transport, which is when they call in one of these agencies and these other levels can occur. And that was a real concern because we've heard a lot about CWIS and how limited their ability to generate things like that are right now and that this would have to be done by Anne. So they wanted to do it just for those who end up being transported with restraints. And so I drafted it that way and then added the following section too, which says, once they've got the new technology on board, they have to do it for all secure transport. But for now, it would just be for restraints.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm feeling kind of no, not lost,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: but tell me what the difference is in secure transport from restraint. Okay, so a secure transport, which there's a definition part we didn't get to yet, is when they call in an outside contractor, the sheriff or their private agency, who takes the child in a locked vehicle with either law enforcement driving or this agency that provides this transport, rather than just a staff transporting the child. Oh, okay. So, it's a higher level of restraint. Don't know, you could sort of maybe like seclusion, you're locked and you can't get out of the car.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You can't get right, you're right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: As opposed to then using something additional, whether it's soft restraints or so forth for the transplant.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that might be considered the lowest level of restraint. Exactly, precisely. So can I ask the department a question? So if you're able to tell us when mechanical or other restraints are used, the lowest level of restraint, and those situations are only going to be in a law enforcement vehicle, then I'm not sure why.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The private agencies do have soft restraints that they can use.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, yes. But I'm just saying, are you considering restrictive private agencies being restrictive? Do they have the ability? I know law enforcement back seats, you can't open them from the inside. Is that the same for Yes. Okay. So I if you're able to provide us the data on the restraints used and those restraints are only used at the times when you are calling upon outside transportation. I'm not sure why you're not able to tell us sort of that baseline of when you're using at the outside. Do you understand what

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm They will tell us how many times. I can find the numbers that I pass up here. The difference is the volume. There are a lot of kids who go by, well, a lot, so you can get that number. Maybe you have that number. A lot of kids who may go by secure transport, but they are never restrained. There's only a small number who are restrained. So when you have to do hand counting of the records, doing it, they can take on the burden of a smaller number, but not the full, That's what they've done. I can get the actual numbers. Maybe we're not

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: going We break have the numbers. Yeah. Okay. All right. So that's distinction.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But that is an area where, I promise both folks, I would say, the Child's Advocacy Office thinks that they should have to report on all kids in secure transport. So that was a non consensus But I'm comfortable with it, particularly with adding that they must start doing it when they the So it'll be

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: an element, a data element. Okay. Alright.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Keep going. Alright. So number two there on the next is that that added caveat that I'm just trying to find this page here. Oh, it's on page 19. Thank you. Once the department has upgraded its technological capacity in a way that enables it to collect this, they will be required to collect it for all secure transport. And then the next part is the report that will really look at implementation of this part of the bill. So it's asking Okay. This this is the matching language. This is new language just from yesterday's testimony from the Department of States Attorneys and Sheriffs. They have that small number of children that they do transport under court order. They don't keep any data. The sheriff said they could easily check it, in other words, write it up for us. They had 12 last year. They may have a little bit more than that because if they're charged in adult court but they're a minor, they count it differently. But this would simply require that department to provide the data to us when they do secure transports. And so, okay, so then my question becomes,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: because those the testimony I recall said, those are ones ordered by the courts. Yep. So that's not something DCF would necessarily have information about.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No. This would have to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be them providing it. Right. So the Sheriff's Association, not to be confused with the Department of Attorney and Sheriffs. Yes. And those folks are used, are those folks that you contract with at DCF directly? I'm trying to figure out, I wanna make sure there's not a duplication of information, but trying to make sure that we have all the information. So I'm presuming that we don't need to ask the Sheriff's Association for the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: same thing. That's right. No, they're required to provide their data to DCF. To DCF? Oh, wait, so

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: They would suggest contracts with the Sheriff's Department.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And so then that information would then, you'd be request, I'm presuming that you requested the information you provided to us from the sheriff's association.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: I did reach out to you, but I believe you got it primarily the form. Business office, yeah.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. There's a form they have to fill out and in order to be reimbursed, they have to fill it out. But it also is where they identify the type of transport to support with that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just wanna make sure that we're covering all the bases because we learned a whole lot more about transporting in this process. Yeah.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: With with the language here, I apologize if I have myself confused, but if we just talk about the number of secure transports of minors Mhmm. That also include transport of miners in the DOC in DOC system? And is that I don't know that that's what we're looking for, but the way it's worded

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes and yes. We are

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yes and yes. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Any transport they do, which might be from DOC to court and so forth. If they're minors, we wanna know how they're being transported. Okay.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Do you want the office of child youth family advocate on the recipient list of that report? Just currently has the relevant house and senate committee.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think that'd be that'd be fine to include them, or they could just get it it'll come to us. It'll be a public document. I don't know if it needs to be used.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know. Is the does DCF want a copy of that? Or

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah. That'd

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: great. Oh, yeah. Okay. Okay. So why don't we add DCF and OCYF?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Do you

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: want OCYF added in subsection I? That's the corresponding report from DCF.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, that would be just a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They're supposed to be getting it already, but yes, go ahead and add it. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay, Anne, next. Okay, next we get to the definitions. Why are they after in this? I don't understand

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what the construct I can't understand that too. Sometimes we just are adding one or two. We put it at the end. I can bump it up. Could do. Yeah, that's fine. All the questions I kept asking answers. Well, there's in the definition. You see the switch. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. So although now it's going to be bumped even further in the sense that you also don't want to repeat the whole definition in two statutes. Transportation and the restraints occlusion part are two different pieces. And so there are a number of these definitions, go back to the kind of core restraints occlusion.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'll let Katie deal with that.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We have some cross

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: references. Right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So the least restrictive we get to in the later bill, mechanical restraint, physical restraint. Secure transport only applies to this bill, so that definition is here. And it includes in terms of, what you would call impression of being securely held like you can't leave. If it's a vehicle driven by a law enforcement officer, that qualifies as secure transport, even if it's not a specially locked or safety partition vehicle. So that's just a clarification there. Weigh shackles, want to remove the word metal.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This day and age, there's very strong plastic and other things. I don't want it to be just neutral.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Katie? I know you're dual task genius. I know, there are other committees asking for things at the same time. Do

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you want me to sic Laurie on them? She's your protector, Katie. I appreciate it. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So the next section is just the report next December just telling us how they've implemented all this. So it's, you know Is it a one time report? Yes, this is a one time report on how they're now contracting, how they're providing the supervisory review of these reports by the transporters, how they're collecting, reviewing the data, the materials that are being provided in terms of information.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: And

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm not sure, well, that's another one that can move, I guess. Restraint is listed here for the definition. Okay, the next section is new, is brand new, because one of the difficult things in pulling all this together is it became more clear about this distinction between when this policy that was created twenty years ago does or doesn't apply. And right now it only applies to DCF supervised or involved transports. Just as with the court ordered ones, doesn't come under DCF. Any other kind of we heard the story about the state police picking up this child in testimony last week. None of that comes under this statute currently. And obviously this year in our one hour of markup of the bill, we can't suddenly bring in, okay, we're going to start applying this to all law enforcement in the state. That's a big piece. And what actually, this was a suggestion from Sheriff Anderson, who's himself kind of frustrated at the fact that they are working really hard to do this right and they know kids are not being handled the same way elsewhere. And so his suggestion was that the Vermont Criminal Justice Council are the ones that establish the statewide policies that apply to local law enforcement, state police, so forth. And they did this major lift of a use of force policy for the state and didn't drill down into this subgroup of how one uses secure methods on minors. They didn't do it as a separate look. And so we're asking them, along with all of the key players, getting input from the advocates and so forth, to look at whether it's not imposing at this stage, thou shalt change it, but whether it needs to be changed to include what's called an appendix to the use of force policy. Now, originally this was drafted to include mental health because they have the parallel statute, and it turns out they did an appendix for mental health. It was thanks to the judiciary committee chair looking at this who said, what it ought to say is not whether they should rewrite the use of force policy. They do appendixes to it that become a part of it, and that's the way to phrase it. So the judiciary chair has reviewed this. They don't need to look at it or take the bill. We adjusted the language per their recommendation.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So are we taking out mental health?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Okay. Isn't that, that's not removed in this version? No. Oh, okay. Taking out Yes, mental I'm sorry about It's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: already been done for mental health, that's why.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, so we're taking out belief to have a maladult disability and we're taking out the last line of persons in the custody of the commissioner of mental health.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so I wanna make sure that I am clear about this. What I think I heard you say is that BCJC provides the guidance and policy for all law enforcement. We don't need to separately list the sheriffs, the state police, the local. Okay. Right. So, okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They're all on the council. They're all a part of that council.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So do they adopt policies? Yes. Okay.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that the one thing that I don't see covered here is the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living, because they do have youth with developmental disabilities. That's right. That I'm pretty sure there's no appendix for. You are right.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Were you talking about

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Section 11? Section 11.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so remove DMH and add Dale? Yes. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You said mental health. Oh, I'm sorry, remove DMH, yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And add

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Dale. Yes. Forgot they were still in there. Yeah. And the office is the office of the attorney general still there? Because we struck that also. It turned out I didn't know that they sheriff Anderson had suggested that they needed somebody to provide the legal assistance. And the attorney general's office said,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: wait. BCJC has their own.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They have their own. Right. So we we eliminated. They're they're eliminated. They're not in here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Good. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: All right, so then we break and go into the restraint and seclusion piece, which is about residential facilities and children more broadly in the custody of DCF when DCF has authority over that. Now, this is where we got into this complication of just like we can't, these laws can't apply to the Montpelier Police. They also can't apply, DCF has no control, for instance, over what an emergency department or an inpatient hospital, they have their own regulations. So we can't say DCF, you have to enforce this. There is a section that will address, what about if it is something where DCF doesn't have authority and some guidance on how to deal with that? But this all has to do with facilities, DCF licenses. You'll see that later in the definition of child, which is what applies to all of this. So the first is that as an initial premise, prone restraints, mechanical restraints, chemical restraints, or strict searches on a child are prohibited. Do you want to skip to the definitions, Madam Chittenden? Yeah, so let's look at the mess of it. When we go through it, people will know what each of those need. So that would be, I believe it's page 26, it might have shifted to

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah, the

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: very bottom of 26.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Bottom of 26, okay. Some of these definitions are very standard. Chemical restraint is one that's standard. Some of them are actually drawn directly from the existing DCF rules and regulations. So chemical restraint is a medication that's used specifically to address behavior. It's not a medication that's needed for an illness. And that is not permitted at all in residential facilities. That does happen in inpatient hospitals, for instance, including for children. Child or children, this is sort of a really pivotal one because it's basically saying, who does all of this apply to? Well, it's a child, children in the department's custody or any child receiving care or services in a program regulated or licensed by the department. So even if it's not a child in the department's custody, if it's a child who's in a program they license, you can't have different regulations for the kids who are in custody or not in a program that the department has licensed. So that's who is covered by everything in here whenever it says child. Mechanical restraint is any kind of a device that's not a staff person's hands, physical. It's any kind of a device that restricts freedom of movement. I have to say there was one phrase in there, I can't quite picture what it is, but it was the DCF regulations that used that, so I just picked up their definition. Don't ask me what garment, yeah, this is number three. A garment adjacent to the child's body that restricts freedom of movement. I can't don't quite what that is, but I felt like it didn't matter. That's their What is it? That's their definition. What does that mean? Oh,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a safety smock. So a safety smock is

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: not put on the child? This has adjacent to the child's body. I

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: think that's the off word adjacent. Yeah. I think it's otherwise what it sounds like.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The words Garment attached to the body is like a smock. Right. But a a a garment adjacent to the child's body that restricts movement.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's like a word of art at some point. I

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: mean, suppose we could strike it. I just figured since it's existing and so people must know what it is, just use their definition. We'll get some clarity

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: where Tyler is going to be jumping off, he might know what it

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The only thing that, you know, what comes to mind, is not something that I actually would want to have, is some sort of garment or equipment that is attached to a wall and that you're then putting the In child that case, yes. When Tyler gets on, let's ask him because if that's what

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, it these are all things that are banned except for the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: safety When you of the can use them. Yeah. I'm not sure you'd wanna use that. Right. So let's find out what it is first.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay, that's fine.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep. All right, so just a question mark around what adjacent to means. Do you know what adjacent to means?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Eric? Don't comment. It means what I think it does, doesn't it?

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: She was actually, she brought the right track, right It's restraint that was up on the wall and going to restrain it, and they were actually hitting the wall.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, that's not.

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: That's not how the whole concept is. So that's why I'm refraining from going anywhere.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay. That's what I thought

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it was. That's what it that's the that's the vision it gives me. So I didn't know if that's accurate, then we will not want to use it, Jason.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Then it wouldn't be banned anymore.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Except for you can't. All right, well, we'll talk about it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, when we get to when it can be banned. Restraint. Again, this is mostly drawn from DCF regs. It's using a manual or physical hold. And it clarifies, it doesn't include if you're putting your hand on the kid's shoulder and saying, Come on, we need to go here. As long as the kid is able to pull away, that's not a physical restraint. Prone restraint, this is really an important clarification. A restraint is pretty broadly recognized around the country. Many states have banned the use of prone restraint in schools as well as in residential facilities because they are much higher risk of a child not being able to breathe or to communicate that they're in distress if they're being held down face down on their stomach. However, there are some best practice things, and I guess, depends on where you are, if they've been adopted or clarified, where if you have to bring a child down in a prone position, which at times may be safer than if you're going to twist them around and put them on their back right from the beginning. You bring them down prone and then immediately move them into a breathing able to handle it. It's actually New Hampshire, a few years ago, adopted a statute banning prone restraint in schools and residential facilities that makes this specific, I drew most of the language from it, that says if it's a momentary hold in order to transition to a safer form, that's not considered a prone restraint. So this addressed the department's concern about having a total ban on it because this, they believe, is often definitely the safer way to approach it and doesn't permit holding a child down in that position It's for any of that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: momentary. Yep. So, Tyler, good morning. We have a question for you.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Not the one we just talked about. Not that one. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're talking about mechanical restraint, the definition of mechanical restraint. And it refers to device material or equipment or garment attached to or adjacent to the child's body. Can you describe what adjacent to means?

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: Actually, I had that question. I'm not sure what adjacent to meant on it. I didn't call it out as a specific area of concern because my assumption, was putting in some sort of you know, confined space where a person couldn't maybe lift their arms or something like that or putting a block in place, but I wasn't sure what that meant.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, so, right. So, this is one of those areas, Tyler, where this was language that I included only because it was in the department's regulation I to find that didn't have a clue what it meant, but I just thought, well, they must know. Okay.

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: I I believe Chris Ward or somebody over from our licensing unit might. I'll send a message right now and see if they can answer that question. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think information from era has gone by to be perfectly

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, probably. We're not to want it here. Right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Or we're going to want to I have to go back when we get to the top part and how these when it's aligned How to it's applied. Yes. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Alright. So next is strip search. Again, this is sort of standard definition of what a strip search means, which is what it sounds like. You're disrobing, you're not just taking off your t shirt, you're having to strip down so that your private parts are visible. It doesn't include a pat down through the clothing. Right. So I have a question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This these provisions follow the child to a location that isn't licensed by DCF? And I'm specifically thinking of the Brattleboro retreat who does utilize strip searches. So if they're in DCF custody and they go to the Bradborough retreat, it does not. Like that's the emergency room of a hospital. Exactly. Okay. They're going by other things.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That would have to be a whole different, maybe it needs to be looked at by this committee, but it wouldn't be in this bill.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. It doesn't follow the child. Right. Right. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Least restrictive, which also applied to the transportation statute, which had been brought up in this committee. There ought to be a definition. I hunted all over the place, talked to Nobody has a definition. They just kind of use it all the time. So this was a definition based on the context of best practices in a lot of places. This was just a description of what that means. The minimum intervention necessary to prevent harm, that something that maximizes the child's autonomy, ensuring that restrictions are proportionate to the risk of harm, and that involuntary measures are only permitted as a last resort. That's the context of a lot of descriptions of what it means. It's not placed in a definition anywhere. So I didn't take it from some other definition.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You just referenced in the previous section that it was referenced. I'm just trying to look to see. Did we repeat definition?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, no. We cross referenced it, I believe. Yes. Yeah. We said as written here.

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: Here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Soft restraint. Again, that's a standardized definition. It's using soft material or fabric that's designed to fit around the limbs. So it is officially a mechanical restraint because it's not manual, but it's a type of mechanical restraint that's using soft materials. And then again, finally, secure residential program because there are some specific things that apply only if it's a secure residential program, and that's the department's definition of it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, any questions on the definitions other than the one we have?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We go back then to how do the definitions apply? So that is going back twenty two,

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: two.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, 2021, I ordered '22 in the new one. Yes, '22 in the Yeah, new okay. Restraint and seclusion, and this is where it starts off, the basic premise is no use of prone restraints, mechanical restraints, mechanical restraints, or strip searches. And preview on that is that there are some very limited specified things that say notwithstanding A. So when it says notwithstanding A, you mean it's going to cue you that this is an exception to this starting rule. B is simply a very standard description of the fact that it can't be used for punishment. It's only a method of last resort to prevent. And you'll see that term again and again, serious and immediate risk of harm to the child or another person. That's the standard that's used by DCF, by best practice. And the same thing when we get to see that this is a standard best practice threshold that before using it, there has to be an attempt or considering other less restrictive interventions and determining that it was unsuccessful or likely to be ineffective. So there could be an emergency on the spot where a child's running out into traffic. You're not going to stand there and say, I wonder what I could do less restrictive. That would be you've considered it and realized on the spot it's not going to save this kid, so you don't have to go through this long thought process. But usually things are escalating. You don't want to prematurely say we need to use something highly restrictive if you can talk the child down, if you can do things that avoid it. And that's the standard for that. All right. So I have a I'm

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not really happy with the consider attempting. We already say that this is and, well, we actually don't for the child's safety. After attempting to use less risk. So I understand the example that you used. And I'm just trying to reference, pull back from my memory a bill that was drafted around restraint and seclusion in schools. And so I get that it's only used for when there's immediate threat to child safety. But I think we can say that immediate threat to the child safety. I think that it's too broad. I think that considering it because it's, in this case, applicable to any time you're using it, it's too broad. Do you know what I mean?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I understand what you mean. I think we need to make sure that it does recognize that there are times because shall attempt, if you don't have consider attempting, you're left with shall attempt. I think there needs to be some clarification or there's times when you can't actually attempt it because it's so urgent. Well, think maybe the lead in sentence to see is

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the use any physical restraint or seclusion is for the child's safety and the safety of others or something like that. I know that that's the whole intent around this, but then It's implied, explicit. But it's

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, if you see D1, that's explicit here, but I understand what you're saying still. You can't use them unless D1, unless it is a serious and immediate risk of physical harm.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. I just think that that needs to be the first thing that is stated. I think that that needs to come up.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Look back up to B. Look back up to B. And it says, shall not be used for any other reason other than as a safety measure of last resort to prevent an immediate serious and immediate risk of harm to the child or another person. Those both lead in and It is. It is.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just I'm just having a pause on the considerate and Right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: There may be better words or or shall attempt or

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: But just consider and take out attempting.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Is it that you That might be Do really like

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: them to have thought at least more than just reacting and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, they're gonna need to react in a situation like you said. It's a young child and they're, you know, somebody's, you know, they're running out to the street or something. They're gonna or they're, you know, gonna touch a hot stove or something. You're gonna need to do that. I I just the considerate part is is the but maybe it's the when removed from attempting.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Is it absent exigent circumstances, the staff member shall attempt?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sorry. Say that again?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah. Absent exigent circumstances, a staff member shall attempt.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think that's actually

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: They're less restrictive.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And drop prior to using, because we know this is prior to using, it's the steps here. And in fact, D says after attempting to choose. So we don't need that prior to using. I was going say, say it again, but maybe Katie already got it. Think I have it. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Okay, thank you. Alright. So now we get to Yeah. We're attempting.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: If I could just revisit a, just very quickly. It's it's very bright line rule here. The department shall not use.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yep.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: But you say later on there are exceptions. Do we need to reference at the top there that you know Notwithstanding. Notwithstanding exceptions in outlined in this section, the department shall not use. Just I'm just if someone doesn't go all the way through this, there's a very clear no exception reference in the first line of the section.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So that's probably a drafting question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I think it I mean, there's a little bit of apologies. I think probably it's fine the way it is to have the rule and then the notwithstanding fall after it. If you feel like it could be some confusion or that somebody wouldn't read the whole statute, I'm happy to add the language in and then it's in both places. So I'm gonna make an argument for the opposite. I think we actually should be definitive about the statement and then outline the exceptions.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: As it is written now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: As it's written now. Yeah. Just think it's an important policy choice to We don't want you

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to do this. Because they are extremely narrow and you'll see when we get to them. They're only for the secure residents, for one thing, the exceptions, and they're for two of them. So I think it would be difficult without making it a lot longer to start even referencing the exceptions. I your point, Doug.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I do get your point. But I think we are making the policy choice to be definitive about it. Right. Folks, sorry. Yeah, this is just discussion. Okay, you don't.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, was looking at the state board of education's rules around this and how they say, You need

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to do this first before

[Esme Cole (Member)]: you do this. And I kind of like this language. Was less restrictive interventions have failed or would be ineffective in stopping such imminent danger of physical injury or property damage. Because it's a little more than consider, I think, you were a little

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: caught I up completely agree. It's more of a checkbox than a mental checkbox.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: I don't know.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can you just cut and paste and forward that to Katie? And then if we can just kind of like

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So we can compare

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: side to So we can compare it, yeah. It on

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: both end. Yeah. I will throw in, and I'm not disagreeing with Sorry, just Now,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if they only monitored and assessed school districts in the use of Oh, that It's a good policy. Is a good policy. It's written as fine. The problem is that

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: don't sort of tons of art, if you will, the way it exists in current some of this that's in current policy, because everything you change in language is a retraining thing. So if it doesn't make a substantive difference about what we're trying to do, but it might be better language, I'd rather not change it, but this may be substantive. And also keep in mind that all of this has to go into rules, which will be much more detailed. We're just outlining these are the key pieces. So, okay, see? So, these are sort of the criteria for if you've done what you have to do first and you've been trained in accordance with the rule, you may physically restrain. And remember, that's defined, this is not mechanical restraint. You can physically restrain or place a child in seclusion, which is not a band, not on the list of band, these three things. You've, again, back to that, you've determined that it poses a serious and immediate risk. You conduct it in a way that respects the child's privacy and limits physical and psychological trauma. There are a lot of times when we say and prevents physical and psychological trauma. That's been pointed out in several places. We're kidding ourselves. You can't do this in a way that prevents trauma, or you certainly can't in most of the time. You can limit it. You can try to do it in a way that limits it the most, but unfortunately, there's always going to be some. That's why we don't allow it except in an urgent situation of harm. And then one of the criteria is also that right after the intervention, you have to explain why it's happening and what a child needs to do to be released. There was a point at which that was one of the things that you do before, and I think it was Marshall Paul or I don't remember who, one of the advocates who was saying, If I talk to my kid and say, This is before I intervene and say, This is what you have to do to get out. That's not really appropriate or viable, but you need to let them know right afterwards. The next part, E, is again a very standard practice. I'm losing the term there, best evidence based practice, that this is for emergency, for the risk of harm, serious and immediate risk of harm. So whenever that is no longer present, child has to be released immediately. And then we get to the next section where there is not consensus on how to approach this, because the starting position had been no child should be held for more than, should be in seclusion for more than an hour. And the department felt rather strongly that there are rare circumstances, but there are circumstances where a child would need to be in seclusion for more than an hour, and that there should be a threshold of review, but that it shouldn't be banned on a specific time allowance. So after that, I actually went back to the department's regs. I had kind of left the details to rule making but had just put that one hour limit. So I went back to they actually have a ten minute threshold and a thirty minute threshold. So I put that back in which puts in a requirement for more ongoing review, has to be approved and oversight by the supervisor. And if it's lasting more than thirty minutes, clinical and administrative approval.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that should say administrator. Yes, we have. It'll be administrator on duty.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, we haven't gotten to that sense yet, because then that's the third level. The third level is the more than an hour, which is the contentious one. And so that's where it now says it has to be an in person assessment, not a consultation, an in person assessment by a clinician and authorization by the administrator on duty if it's ever going to be beyond an hour for seclusion. Restraint is not permitted to go on. I mean, can't. You wouldn't be able to physically restrain a child. Has a manual restraint. But that was acceptable to the department as if it absolutely had to be, the advocate's office strongly disagrees. In my mind, there's a question that's valid to be raised or grappled with, and that is what would we be expecting them to do? Now you can say all sorts of things about, well, it shouldn't end up that way. There should be interventions that are good enough that within an hour you can have the child calm down enough that they're not an immediate threat. You can argue that, but the flip side is what if, for whatever reason, what if that child is still a danger, is still immediate danger if they're released from seclusion? What would we expect them to do if we say you cannot have them longer than an hour? That's the discussion point for the committee where I put the language, but it's a key decision point.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So Matthew, I see you have your hand up. Thank you to the person to my left. So I just want to be clear that at this point, this is not about advocating for your point of view, but if you have additional information around clarification or question, that's allowable.

[Matthew Bernstein (Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure, I don't know how to advocate from my point of view, but I understand I understand your point. On this topic, honestly would like to hear from the department or anybody in the room an actual case of a child being restrained for an hour or more? Because I have never So

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: seclusion, not restraint.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Both. It both.

[Matthew Bernstein (Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: No. No. No. No. No. I said the wrong word. Please. I apologize. I meant to say I meant to say secluded. Sorry.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Matthew Bernstein (Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: I understand. And the actual example of a child being secluded for that amount of time, because I I don't think that's a real scenario. And I think to do so is incredibly traumatizing to a child. So someone from the department help me understand? Thank

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you for that question. And we will check-in on that. I mean, do know that there have been past cases in the press where that actually has happened, not recently. So do we have data? I guess the question is, do we have data from current practice that says that this has occurred? What kind of data do we keep on this kind of situation at this point in time? I guess that's a question for Tyler.

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: Yeah, thank you for question. I think it is a good question. I think this is one of those challenges where I agree with Matthew, this isn't something we see in practice. Practice. We're not seeing long term seclusion or certainly not restraint. The idea is these should be as time limited as possible, but I think our feedback was if the circumstance is such that the imminence is still there, the unsafety is there, after one hour in a secluded environment, if you have a youth who is unwilling to safety plan, for example, is actively threatening a peer or somebody else within the institution, can you safely put them into an integrated space with peers when they're, you know, communicating that their intention is to do harm? It's a hypothetical, but if we put it into law that there is a specific timeframe by which we have to reintegrate them into a population, should such a situation as that occur, it puts everybody at risk.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So you didn't answer the question about whether there's any So

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: we do have data on each incident report that happens.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So Have there's you seen any? I'm sorry, have I you seen

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: have not seen a circumstance by which we had over an hour that somebody needed to be secluded or restrained.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Matthew, I'm gonna decide after you ask whatever it is you're gonna ask, whether we're gonna continue in this manner or not.

[Matthew Bernstein (Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanna say for the record, Matthew Bernstein, Child Youth and Family Advocate. I just wanted to clarify because I appreciated what Tyler said, that again, we're not talking about stepping down from a seclusion to a non seclusion does not require integration of the child back in with their peers. It only All right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Matthew, Matthew, I'm gonna stop you. That's fine. You've crossed the line in terms of I don't mean in a negative way, but just in terms of where our process is at.

[Matthew Bernstein (Child, Youth, and Family Advocate)]: Well, I might just clarify real quick why it is germane, think. Because in terms of the question as to whether an hour is necessary or not, I'm saying that I I that the integration with the peer that you can you can step down from a seclusion without having to integrate the child with the with with their peers. So I'm just saying that I think to echo it is increased it is incredibly rare that it would have to go on in terms of the safety of other peers in the in the space for more than an hour. So just to clarify, that's what I was trying to say.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So let me get a sense from the committee in terms of where you would want to go in there. I think the requirement that there's an in person assessment by a clinician is, for me, the safety valve of assuring that nothing goes beyond what's absolutely necessary. And that clinician can say, yeah, this person doesn't, you don't have to reintegrate them into If there are more youth in the same building, they can go to their bedroom or they can go to another room where they're by themselves with staff. So I'm just saying for me, the in person assessment, I wouldn't feel comfortable without an in person face to face assessment. But that's just my thoughts. Other people have thoughts.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah, agree wholeheartedly because I

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: like to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: know when a child's in seclusion, what type of monitoring assessment and documentation is going on while they are in seclusion?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Look at number two right beneath it. No, no, no. Mean, monitoring.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because if there's some level of monitoring assessment documentation

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: going on currently while they're in seclusion, the time really doesn't factor on in as the assessments are being going on, you're assessing the situation, recognizing, taking in all the facts, taking in the monitoring, taking in the documentation. Therefore, setting a time in statute could be detrimental and harmful to both parties.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I look at things more in regards to

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: your monitoring and assessing, and you're using the assessments and the case plans to respond to the situation. I don't mean to get all like, the thing,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I agree with you. I think that the point is that we have to think about the kinds of situations where this could occur. So for instance, at night, when you don't necessarily have the clinical staff on-site, you really have got a lower level of staff. In a twenty four hour situation, a residential situation, you don't have necessarily the level of professional assessment available to them.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: That's where

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: I'm kind of going with.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. And I think that this could occur in times when you weekends, for instance, or other times when you don't necessarily have those professional level staff available to do that in the moment. So I think that there does need to be a safeguard of time. But I I wouldn't feel comfortable with it unless it has that in person assessment. Absolutely. And

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: I do support what Matthew and Tyler were saying. That is true. These are one hour are very rare with talking between that two to five percent.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think this inhibits safety issues for Normal. The child or the other other children and staff in the building, but I think it does provide a protection for the child who actually is in in seclusion, not restraint. That's restraint is being yeah. Restraint is not a part of that

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: because I I actually had a quick consult right before we started saying that, you know, we we were duplicating the language. We're not keep yeah. She already

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I already talked to her Remove those. Removing restraint. Yeah.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: That'll work.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Will this be going to judiciary because this really to me seems like something they really need to see. We've actually been in consultation with Will the they be part of this bill? That will be if they decide to and I've already notified the chair. For him to take a look at this most recent draft. Would be more of their field. Don't know exactly. Not a

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: a criminal field. Clinical field. But if they felt that it was something they needed to look at, they've been told-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I wouldn't be able to vote on this bill. I mean, I know I can't abstain, but I am not qualified to vote on a bill like this. Okay, thanks. Well, none of us. I wouldn't

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: be able to vote on a bill like this.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's what we call a citizen legislature representative. Yeah, I couldn't vote on something that could possibly be a danger to an adult or a child. That's what these are all putting in place so that we avoid that. But I don't see it avoiding it. That's what I'm saying.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: All right. Only because I've witnessed it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. I'm

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: just trying to get clarity on what you were saying earlier, madam chair, about the challenges of weekends and overnight and the sometimes the lack of availability of a clinician, how does that jive with the with for an in person clinician, how does that jive with the one hour? I'm just trying to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hopefully, they're on the, you know, on the phone in consultation saying we got this situation happening They would have to be called in. That's why

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it becomes a higher threshold. And in fact, that was part of our discussion when the department said, well, we'd have an assessment and all that. And I was the one who said, but about in person as like, we want it at very highest level. Have to be so sure that they can't get around it that they're willing to call on the clinician if they

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: need Yeah,

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: it's working with an on call clinician and then the physical visit.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: So it seems to me that listening to this conversation that the issue of time and the issue of the severity of the situation aren't necessarily related. And and so we're we're putting these two together and maybe they're not related, actually. Maybe it's just take it might be smart to take the time out altogether. The and and just allow the severity of the situation to be the the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But if it's not severe, they're not gonna It's gonna immediately end if that significant danger is not there anymore.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: But what if it's not related to time?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, it wouldn't be related to time, but we're just saying there's an outside threshold that we shouldn't ever be crossing unless the severity is enough, where there's gotta be a clinician who says the severity is such that they actually do need to stay for much longer than most people would. I don't think there'd be disagreement that longer than an hour in seclusion is damaging to a child is not a good thing to happen. And so it would only be allowed to happen if it was severe enough that a clinician is evaluating and saying, Yeah, this child has to, even though we know it's harmful to be in seclusion that long. Does that make sense?

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: I hear you. Can I?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: To the flip point of saying, there's also the potential to where a child is in seclusion and you know, the person saying, well, you know, after ten minutes, let them go. There's a potential to turn around and saying, no. We're gonna keep them

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: in there up to the hour. Which we don't want them to do. Right. So that's why No.

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: But what I'm saying

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is Yes. I understand what you're saying.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Because you don't

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: look at the flip coin of somebody's saying, there are.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: It's easier,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: but that's why we've got the ten minutes on the thirty minutes.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: And maybe to prevent that from happening in the first place, we need to work very clear in statute that to unjustly do the restraints, instead of considering something less severe, having very strict language.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's why the assessments,

[Todd Nielsen (Member)]: the documentation, the monitoring is key to the progress of deciding when the support or that needs to be relinquished. That's why sometimes If

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: you go

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: back to e, shall be immediately released if there's no longer serious and immediate risk. Yep. That covers your Yeah. That's a requirement.

[Esme Cole (Member)]: But I hear you on the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: impulse of first reading that, that could be, but the context I think is very helpful, like the E piece. Yeah. Yeah. We kind of get stuck when we go down this rabbit hole on this one piece of language. We got to remember what comes before and what comes after it. So at this point in time, I'm to make the call to leave it the way it is and move on.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Number two here, shouldn't be controversial. That's, again, that is direct language from DCF current regs. If they're going to be in seclusion and restraint is not included here if it didn't get crossed out by mistake. This applies to seclusion, constant, uninterrupted supervision by whatever type of supervision they have, but it's got to be constant and uninterrupted. But we get immediately to the next of, I think there are about five altogether, so the next non consensus piece. And that is one of the exceptions which would apply only to the secure residents has to be done, it has to do with a locked bedroom during regular sleeping hours. So not abuse of a locked bedroom, which really is seclusion, but the department feels that in the secure residence, which is, you know, nobody wants to admit and call it a detention facility. It's like treatment, crisis intervention, but it is the closest we have as far as I'm concerned. It is a detention facility. And so the question is, do we exclude from the term seclusion if you're in your bedroom. What if you were in a detention facility would be your cell, in fact, their bedroom design, but during sleeping hours that the room can be locked so that staff doesn't be sitting outside the door and so forth. And they have very, very robust staffing, which is why it costs so much for these small programs. But the concern, I'm trying to articulate their concern is if you have several kids who decide they want to pull a little escape attempt and kids may want to try to do that, right? That they could team up. And even if you have three staff on duty, but you've got four kids, they watch a little plan

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: One gets away and the other three

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: get

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: caught.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I don't know. Well, but they all go out and try to dump and staff or whatever. So, you know, it's So this reflects the department's position, and this was an area where the advocate strongly disagreed with having this exemption. Yeah, I have to think about it myself, to be honest. Yeah, I understand the concern. I'm very much on the fence, and this was one where I said, I'm bringing this to the committee. This is a difficult call on this.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Does this language reflect current practice?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. They do lock them in the bedrooms at night for sleeping. When we took a tour, they said no, they did not. Well, yeah, it was a little ambivalent, I know you made a specific to I hope you're not going to do this. Of course, it hadn't opened yet. And that was the former commissioner who said, no, we're not gonna do that. But they promptly did.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There a way so I guess my question is whether is regular practice or is it only practice in certain- Yeah, sit down every night. Like when it's been a rough day and the kids have had, like when there's been this essence of stress in the facility, in the home? Or is it just like, this is normal practice? And honestly, feel like

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we are paying for a lot of

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: staff in these facilities. And we were told yesterday in a meeting that it's staff secure. That's not this one.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's not this one. This is Red Clover only, which is not staff secure, it's locked.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is secure. What did I miss here? Definitely what it applies

[Esme Cole (Member)]: to. The lock? Places.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: If it's locked, why why would every bedroom need to be locked? Well, we put the lock in combination

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: with Right. They can't they can't escape if they could assault staff or another child. So that's the

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I know we're concerned about this overnight staffing ratios that put the staff in greater position of vulnerability because wouldn't the same be true during the day?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: During the day, there are other staff present in maybe other roles. There might be a therapist, an education person. So, is a level of people, the ratio There is are three full time frontline youth people for the four bedrooms.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess to the chair's point, maybe situational depending on what the atmosphere, if you will, is at facility and may it be clinician approved or supervisor approved or something that it's not day to day practice, but it remains an option with some checks.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Just to go back to the background question, madam chair, secure residential program is defined. It means secure residential program that employs locked or inoperable drawers and windows to prevent leaving. A staff secure Sorry, what page? It's page 28, number nine, the definitions that we looked at. Right, but where does it say in his that this only applies to that? Oh, right in itself, the definition there of Bob can now have lost my page.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's saying that this is added to section five thousand one thirty. What's 5,130, Katie? That is the sector on transport.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Exchange. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, G1 is what we're looking at, and it says nothing in the sec include in a secure residence. That's where it says

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know, this whole definitions of when seclusion and restraint can be used, it doesn't say that's only in residential. That's what I'm trying to understand. Sorry, 5130 is the restraint and seclusion section we're looking at. 5,130. Right. That's the number right there. So are we in A new chapter. When we're adding what are we adding this to? That's what I'm asking. This section 12? Yes. We're adding it to an existing chapter on title 33 in the green books. Is it Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, you're asking, is it specific to just children in residential treatment Yes. I don't think it is. Think That's it's my point. So I don't agree with you, Okay. We'll check that. Can I have something out here? Not yet.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: This is saying it does not include a in a secure residence. This is limited to a secure residence.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Rest of these definitions are applying to program, any program licensed Yes. Or would be That's what I'm just trying to Yes. Get All right, now, the locked rooms.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Think about it. They're coed. Think about rape, think about boys thinking in the girls' rooms. Would the state lines be charged for rape? Well, there's a reason why they do it, And they're co ed. I know boys and I know girls, because I used to let them both spend

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the night and I had to stay up all night.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They are awake overnight staff. I know, but So I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: guess I will say that we're gonna take a break in a few minutes, which will be good. Scary. I have concerns about fire protection. Have concerns about an emergency situation. And there are less sap on at night, but still more than typical.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Those numbers are? Brett, could you say?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The numbers sound like night versus day. It's helpful for you. Yeah. So I'm really just grappling with this lock bedroom thing. Yeah, go ahead, Erica.

[Eric Maguire (Member)]: I'd just like to add in terms of talking about perhaps limiting the lock bedrooms for times of intensity or there may be something going on. My concern would be that when there's something dangerous like that happening, is it realistic to then expect, can workers be going in to lock the bedroom doors? I think that sort of like then the tech's already out of the bag. I think that having the standard be the way it's been practiced now actually provides the safety. But I do see a point about fire. Oh yeah. And once they've already started to maybe come out and maybe gang up on staff to try to lock folks in. Then I don't think with the three people we have on duty, you're gonna be able to do both.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I get that part. Do you know, and maybe Tyler knows the answer to this question. So like at Red Clover or West Haven River, West River Haven, or is that right? Okay. If a fire alarm goes off, do the doors automatically unlock?

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: I'm gonna have to get that verification that they automatically do, I believe so, but I need to verify that is. It is an automated locking system, but there are key Oh, no, I take that back. There are keys to those doors, so they would have to be unlocked.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, fire would be a problem. The

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: reason it passes fire safety is because the building is fully sprinkled, so there's that level of fire protection in place. Akin to how it is in other detention center, if you have each room individually sprinkled, that there is that assurance of fire safety.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The bedrooms are all individually sprinkled?

[Tyler Allen (DCF High-End Director)]: That is correct.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right, I think now's a good time to take a break. We've been at this for an hour and a half, and I need to think about this one.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And I need to run down to corrections to run their language by them.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And when I get back from