Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good morning. This is welcome to House Human Services. We are taking up an amendment to age six fifty seven. And that's an act relating to enabling unaccompanied homeless youth to obtain certain services without parental consent. And so Katie, if you could, please pull up the amendment. And we have the amendment on our web page. And I'm going to maybe ask the reporters of the bill or the ones around the amendment, just to briefly just give any background that you have. And then Katie will do the language.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. So this amendment is mainly just some technical corrections. When we have been updating some of the definitions, we accidentally cut out the 16 and 17 year olds bit. So we removed the age requirement to be able to be a certified youth. And some other important context got removed in a different change. And so we added in an intent section that just clarifies that. Also in the unaccompanied youth section, judiciary just had couple of small changes to really clarify our intent. So a lot of the changes you see in that are really just about clarity and some technical corrections. And then do you want to chime in about that, the other one?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So there was just one part in my bill about transportation we had added asking the state's attorneys and sheriffs who do a very small number of transports to also give us data for those 12 or 20 a year. And it obviously wasn't clear who we meant because they freaked out thinking we wanted them to report the data for all kids in the DCF system. They said, we wouldn't even know that. Anyway, so we included the word court ordered transports because those are the ones they do. But there was also an issue. We were just repeating the language of what we asked DCF for on transports. And their deputies, like, are pick up a kid and deliver them because it's a court order, but they don't have a bunch of background on them. And they were a little leery on even age and gender, not age, gender and racial background. They were like, well, we'd have to ask them and we're not sure. So they said, please hold up. We'll talk with the Senate about there's maybe a way we can put it in, but don't put that in for now till we can work that out. So that was removed from that. The rest was word snipping. We've changed it to wording that they said is what they work with. So it says date of birth instead of age, little tweaks like that just to meet what they are used together.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, thank you, Katie. Yeah. So good morning, Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Counsel. This is instances of amendment, which I know is hard, but with such a big bill, probably makes sense not to do a strike all. So the first instance of amendment is striking out just section four of the bill and putting in a new section four. I've highlighted the language that is different from your underlying committee report so that that would be hopefully useful to you. There's a new subsection A legislative intent that describes the population specifically that would benefit from the unaccompanied youth section. I noticed when I went to other committees with this bill that there are a lot of questions about the WHO, and hopefully this addresses that more clearly. So in instances in which severe family dysfunction, such as abuse, neglect, child abandonment or lack of financial support has left a child or youth homeless and other supports such as foster care are deemed inappropriate, it is the intent of the General Assembly to provide an unaccompanied youth with the resources necessary to obtain services and benefits that the unaccompanied youth's peers can obtain with the consent of a parent or guardian.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The only question I had was, since this is talking specifically about 16 and 17 year olds, is whether we continue to use the term child. I want to give anybody the impression that it was younger. Well, that's why I just was suggesting that maybe we

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Or maybe 16 or 17 should go right up there. It a trade might off, this is what we're talking about. Has left a 16 or 17 year old youth homeless. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Then it's like right at the beginning.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, then there's no That's fun of me.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then can I just, this is a nit, but I just had a really visceral reaction to the word dysfunction after family? And I'm open to hearing what other people say, especially Jubilee. Feel like it's more like complexities that, I mean, I don't know. I'm not married to it. Just, I mean, just I kind of like

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think it helps underscore for people who are like, Oh, they're just runaways. You know, that this is, that there may be a better way to put it, but this is a family that's really in price. There's bad stuff going on. So I don't know another word other than dysfunction. That's fair.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Did you have something, Doug?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: The word struck me. I wonder if a little sentence reconstruction could be where a 16 or 17 year old is faced with a situation of abuse, neglect, child abandonment, and other supports, then we remove the dysfunction.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, all works for me, just removing it out.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's just something negative, but I I yeah. This is it's intense. Yeah. Mhmm. I I having been also in the places where Katie's talking about, the questions that kept getting raised were, all around the kid who gets into a fight with their family and they decide they're gonna go up their knapsack and go off.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And we're gonna entice them to do that because they know they can get these special. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. That's fair. Think it's, yeah, I think it's important to keep it. Okay.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you for the explanation. Yeah. So if you're removing a child, I'm assuming House you wanna do it here appropriations. That was a question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. That's great.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Go ahead. And so section B, the definitions homeless child or youth, I'm assuming you want to just change it to homeless youth now throughout? We say child or youth, the child or youth. Do you want just for youth?

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: That for because we do then go in for unaccompanied youth. Say it is a homeless child or youth who are 16 or 17. This is the, I think it's important. My hope is we start using this instead of referring to McKinney Vento or all our legislation, but that is the definition for-

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it's different, Katie. So I think that this is okay. Okay.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And here is the language where the 16 or 17 is in definition. Unaccompanied youth means a homeless child or youth 16 or 17 years of age who is not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian. And then because we added the new subsection, we bumped all the other subsections down. You'll see that all the other highlighting is updating the subsections. There is a new D2 sorry, D1B. And this language is that the department shall post the certification form and information about this section on its website, including who is eligible for certification and which individuals and entities can complete the certification form pursuant to this section. Then I think this is mostly updating cross references.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Then It seems longer than it really is. Right? Right.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the editors caught that we have headings for every other subsection, but not this compact. So I added a heading in for the compact piece. Second instance of amendment is in section four a. That is the section that's entitled 13, the runaway youth section. This is language that the house judiciary committee looked at. And they changed the new language that we added that under exceptions carves out unaccompanied youth, the section you've just created, and they use the phrase actions authorized under thirty three ninety eight zero eight. And you're gonna ask me what the original one was, and I'll have to flip back to the other document. So this is a recommendation from judiciary? Judiciary. Yeah. Do you want to know what the previous language was?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think so. We're not going to change it. Okay.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It was more clarifying that it's the specific actions they take as authorized versus the other language. I think some perceived it as if they were authorized under the statute, then they just They could violate anything.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Rather than just specific actions. Okay. All right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. This was our intent.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Right. Yeah. It wasn't giving them immunity from everything.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: In terms of the, this isn't the immunity. Oh, that's not being treated. No, this is the criminal part Okay. The murder

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Gotcha. All right.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Third instance of amendment is really almost fixing a typo. So the defined term that you created is soft restraints, and in one place, the bill uses soft mechanical restraints. So this is just cleaning that up to use the defined term. Top of page seven, fourth instance of amendment. This is the new reporting language for the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs. So striking out the existing subsection where that exists, putting in a new subsection with this new language. So annually on or before January 15, the department is to submit a written report to the policy committees and the advocate addressing the number of court ordered transports of minors conducted by the state transport deputies pursuant to Title 24 during the previous year, including, there it is, the date birth the date date of birth of transported minors, whether restraint was used during transport, if restraint was used, the type of restraint, whether the minor's case was a delinquency, youthful offender, or criminal proceeding, that's new, and the purpose of the transport also new.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, we had said the status of the child, because like DCF is And what we wanted from them is which of those things. They also asked, why isn't it consistent? You use child everywhere else. Why is this minor? And that's key to the criminal. You can have a 16 or 17 year old in their lingo is not a child because they're being prosecuted as an adult. And so child would leave out those. So it's got to be minor as in anyone 18.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Remember we had that conversation before. Yeah. Okay. That's it. Okay. So I have just a technical question. So Anne, are you going to present this part of the amendment?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We thought for the amendment purposes, well, I'll have already referenced this when I present the bill saying this is gonna be wordsmith based on what the sheriff's asked. Then when, so when Jubilee walks through, we didn't think it made sense to trade off for the amendment.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. I just was just checking because I'm trying to, if you were, then I was gonna suggest you'd be at the top end with Jubilee. But if you're not, then there isn't any reason to.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. But that's most Jubilees you still find the best.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. No. I'm fine with that. Having to have people's names added to the amendment if they want.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, yeah. I mean, that's fine too.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It was a committee bill. So well, actually, it wasn't a committee bill. It's off of your bill. This any are there I guess, could I see by a show of hands if you want to be on the amendment? So I I don't have any problem. We can make it from yeah. Okay. Zon, do you wanna be on the amendment? Everybody in the room said they wanted they would put their name on the amendment.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Katie McLean (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And representative Miguel would be first. Yes. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And just to clarify, I don't intend, because it gets complicated, I don't intend to discuss the whole issue of why the state's attorneys didn't want to include gender and racial background unless there happens to notice that he left that out on this one.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Since you're reporting the bill, I doubt that would be happening. Yes. Otherwise, The

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: person who would have noticed it was the person who suggested adding part of that. And she already asked me, I noticed that's not in it. What happened?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, there you go. Yep. Okay. Alrighty. So can I see by a show of hands, this is a straw poll? First, I'll ask, are there any other questions about the amendment? Okay. So can I see by a show of hands, those folks who support the amendment? I'm waiting for Zon. There we go. Okay. That was 902. Did write that down? 902. Yeah.

[Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. She's No, I'll report that. Oh, I'm gonna tell Brian where I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Where They actually know. Yesterday, Jill came to me and wanted me to do it because it was your amendment, because it just had your name. But we had there's multiple people's names So on I think it would be fine. Yeah. Because it would just have your name on Yeah. They don't like to have the person with only their name on it also report the vote of the But since it's significant, it was fine. Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much, Katie. And we'll get back a version of that to post.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Somebody had already noticed in the notice calendar, the bill came to me and said, what happened to putting sixteen and seventeen back in? I don't see it in there. I said, don't worry, I'll make an amendment.