Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good afternoon, folks. Welcome to House Human Services Committee. This afternoon, we are taking up a Senate Bill S two thirty nine, an act relating to child abuse and neglect reporting working group. Before we hear from the reporter of the bill, we're going to hear a walkthrough from Ledge Counsel. And then after that, we're going to have a review of Act 154 because it deals with a lot of the same issues. So we will see whether we actually need to pass this bill or not because there's stuff going on in Act 154 and progress reports on that already coming into the state. So welcome. Thank you. For the record, Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Counsel. And this is my first time

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: appearing for a while. I remember you were here last year. I was not. So I'll just give a little introduction for the folks who don't know me. So Michelle Childs, and I'm part of the judiciary team. I've been here, I don't know, over twenty five years. And we used to just be a team of two. We now have three attorneys. I used to do the CHINS work and the child abuse and neglect work. But about ten years ago, when we added a third attorney to the judiciary team, that moved to the third portfolio. So I'm just giving you the heads up. You're getting kind of like second, third string here with me today. We do have a new attorney who just started the beginning of the session, Hillary Chittenden, who is magnificent. And she will be We're onboarding her now, but corrections is keeping her busy on a lot of stuff and some other things. And so try not to load her up too much. But you may start seeing her come in on this bill if you spend some time on it, especially if you go into some of the other areas that were addressed in Act 154, even though I know that it didn't make any recommendations for legislation. So I'm going to walk you through S-two 39 and then you'll hear from the Senator, and then I'm happy to walk you through Act 150 four-two and just give you an overview. And as you know, there's a report that was required by that that was provided at the end of last year. So I'm going to share my screen. Okay. So as the chair mentioned, this is creating a working group, the Child Abuse and Infected Reporting Working Group. I will note that there's a difference between what's asked about this for this working group to do versus what was asked of folks in Act 154. Act 154 was looking at more of the internal operation for DCF and how do they conduct intakes, how do they decide if something should be an assessment or an investigation, looking at due process procedures, if someone is substantiated, things like that. This is focused on, and you'll see on line seven, it's rules and policy regarding mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect of a child, and then recommending changes to modernize them and reflect current best practices. So you kind of have these two systems where I think generally, even if you haven't worked on this issue before, people are aware that there are certain folks by nature of their occupation and will score volunteer work with certain things that are required under state law to report any suspicions of child abuse or neglect. And there's that duty there. And so while the General Assembly has looked at the pieces of once an investigation is accepted into the agency and the procedures there, it's been a while since you've really taken a wholesale look at the front end. So what happens prior to DCF accepting a report? And so this is more focused on those kinds of things around who should be a mandatory reporter, what types of information should be reported, things like that. So you see subsection B identifies the folks who are in the working group. So you have the director of OPR, again, because many of these people that are listed as mandatory reporters are licensed by OPR. The executive director of the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, co executive director of the Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, the AG or her designee, the chief administrative judge, that's Judge Zon East, if you know him, or designee. Two members from DCF Family Services Division. And then moving on to page two at the top, the Executive Director of Prevent Child Abuse in Vermont or designee, and finally, the Vermont Child Youth and Family Advocate. So subsection C identifies the folks that, at a minimum, the working group should be consulting with and hearing from. Oftentimes when you create these working groups, everybody wants to be on it. But then if you have 25 people in the working group, it's not functional. So this is just identifying people who have information that would be perhaps helpful to the working group. So it's the Vermont Children's Alliance and representation from child advocacy centers, Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs, because they're the ones oftentimes involved with these cases or drafts, violent addiction, KidSafe Collaborative, Voices for Vermont Children, Vermont Parent Representation Center, Disability Rights Vermont, medical partners such as UVM's Child Safe Program, and individuals with lived experience as child victims of abuse and neglect. And then D is your reporting requirement. And so that is on or before January 15. It'll be the first year of the biennium. So if you receive the report in January, you'll still have plenty of time to consider it and initiate legislation next year if you want to do that. Lots of times, if it's a second year, we kind of want to get the report in a little earlier so you have some time to digest it. And the working group is to report any findings and any recommendations for any legislative changes to this committee, the Committee on Health and Welfare and the committees on judiciary. Then on page three, there's a few little things that Senate Health and Welfare added that I think the recommendation of DCF, because there are, as you know, probably better than I do, there are a lot of people working in this area now in various task force and committees. And so first one is that any recommendations should remain consistent with federal requirements under CAPTA. CAPTA establishes minimum standards related to state definitions of abuse and neglect. The second one is to promote efficiency and avoid duplicative work. Working group is supposed to leverage the work of the Children's Justice Act Task Force and the Vermont Citizens Advisory Board, and that serves as Vermont's captive citizen review panel. Michelle, is the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Justice Act Task Force a legislatively convened group, or is that

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I had to look that one up myself. So I'm gonna let's see if I can find it. Well, maybe not. I can look and get back to you. I just don't I'm not good enough on my Zoom screen. Okay. And the Senator may know as well. Three is that the working group is to consider best practices from other states when they're making their recommendations. On subsection E, the working group is going to have the assistance of DCF for essentially providing technical and legal and administrative support. They're to convene their first meeting by August 15, elected chair at its first meeting, and five members are to constitute a quorum. There are no per diems or travel expenses. I think the discussion in health and welfare was that most of these folks were going to be coming under their professional view. There are two members appointed. I'm sorry, one person or two person? I was trying to think. Oh, wait. No, so everybody's going be there under their official capacity. So they chose not to do per diems and travel expenses.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I see that's why they moved individuals with lived experience to consult with, so it didn't show to appropriations.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: This is the year.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Presume we'll hear from the bill reported.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then it takes effect on passage. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are there any questions for Michelle about the content of the bill itself? Okay. I guess we'll hear from the reporter of the bill now, then we'll hear back from you, Michelle, about a refresher on Act 154. Senator Gulick, welcome.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair Wood and Vice Chair Garofano for having me and committee members. It's always a pleasure to walk up those stairs, get a little workout. I started my floor report with this great quote from Agatha Christie. One of the luckiest things that can happen to you in life is to have a happy childhood. I think it's so powerful. As we know, that's not the case for every child in the state of Vermont. So those laws that are in place to protect children, remove them from an abusive situation when necessary, but also being able to discern when they need to stay where they are. These are all really important things for us to be considering. So the idea for this bill came from the Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services, and they spoke to my colleague in the Chittenden Central District, Senator Vijovsky, who is a social worker who has a lot of knowledge about this particular issue just from her professional experience. This is what we came up with. As you can see, and I think Ledge Council alluded to this, these laws around mandatory reporting have not been updated since the 1990s. So they are very much out of date, and they need to be looked at. This bill, instead of proposing changes, as you can see, went with putting together a working group because this work has to be done deliberately, carefully, properly. And I think Senator Rutland and the crime victims center just thought that that would be the best way to approach this. So that is what you're seeing in the bill. We made a couple small changes, but nothing substantial in health and welfare. And I did want to suggest, if you could, we thought I just spoke with Senator Vijovsky, and we thought it might be a good idea to add someone from the Office of Racial Equity to the group.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: She had contacted me about that. Okay, super. I had a question about I see the Office of Professional Regulation, and while I have a great deal of respect for the OPR, it's not the same as a pediatrician themselves or somebody from the Vermont Academy of Pediatrics. I noticed that schools also are not there. Those are kind of like two main places that reports happen from. And I was just wondering if the committee thought about that at all in terms of potential folks to hear from or on

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: the I do not recall that we spoke about that. I think we were just trying to keep the number as small as we could. But I know there are so many stakeholders in this issue, for sure. And we may have discussed education, actually, in schools. So I think that may have come up, but we did not add it. And this bill did come to us late, so we were kind of trying to act with alacrity, for sure.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: To your point, you brought up pediatricians, but I also want know about emergency departments because they often sometimes are the first to see. So maybe if we can encapsulate the medical community and one representative that can speak on behalf of either physicians or hospitals or practitioners in hospitals.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I think a general thing with OPR is needs to be a bit more specific, I think.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I wonder if there's an opportunity to add some of these folks under the consult with stakeholders list, not necessarily building out the working group. May belong there. In addition to education, I was thinking early childcare as well. And maybe that fix could be right now DCF, two members from DCF's Family Service Division. Maybe it could just be two from DCF, one from Family Services, one from Child and Child.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I think those are all things that we should talk about when we start to take testimony and markup on the bill.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: But yeah, I have a feeling we'll be very supportive of changes that you make in here. So yeah, I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: think it's good. Another question, it sounds like it may not have come up, the question of whether the work group's work would include also maybe the penalties side of failure to report or things like that. I'll I'll just admit a personal connection to this. My son was a week into fifth grade when I got a call from the superintendent on a Sunday to say his teacher who was new to the district had been arrested and was a pedophile. He had been passed on by another school district who was aware of concerns, and they just passed him along. So to me, accountability. I know there's a lot of people who fall under mandatory reporters, and hanging something over their head about whether they do or don't report is not my intention. Right. But somehow when it seems clear to a mandatory reporter and they with some, I don't know, an act or omission that's not just accidental or a judgment call. And I just don't know if that came up. Guess it's

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: No. I mean, we kept it pretty open to whatever the task or working group decides to focus on. But yeah, I think anything and everything is on the table. We did talk a little bit about the fact that when thinking about mandatory reporting, Senator Buchosky brought up, make sure that in this discussion, poverty is something that is looked at carefully. Because sometimes I think mandatory reporters are confused, and they have a hard time discerning between abuse and poverty. And that is something that is obviously very important to be able to discern the difference between the two. So those kinds of things came up, I think it'll be up to the working group to decide what they really want to include and focus on. But yes. Representative Maguire?

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Oh, think this is great. No.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think she had questions.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah. I did. There is one that just looking at the first meeting being called on the fifteenth, but within five months, recommendations coming on that suggest we probably change that timeline. I mean, that's really gross meeting being called on the fifteenth and then the report is issued in five months.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: On 01/15/2027? I think the report was even earlier. I think we pushed it back even to January.

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I think it may have been in the fall. Sharon, I worked on an informal similar work group around a different topic, but with very similar stakeholders involved two sessions ago. And we met

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: for like

[Rep. Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: three or four months and once a month, and that was sufficient time for us to come to kind of some recommendations around. So I think that's efficient time.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah, I'm also looking at it from, CAPTA is very complex. And there's the potential with this work group in which you could start getting misaligned with all of those CAPTA requirements and how complex of a that is to where really do need a lot more time to expand on out if you can look at doing a CAPTA audit in regards to how we are following, how we align with it. It's I I just wanna see this group get the most effective response possible and not get kinda rushed through different steps to where things begin to get misaligned. And I would also attest to the point brought on up by both you in regards to our enforcement schools and the medical providers are pretty much the more collective counting for the majority of mandatory reporting and to not have some type of feedback, that could also get things misaligned. Yeah. Mean, I could actually probably see us changing

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: out some of the advocacy organizations for some of the people who actually are doing the reporting here, so as to also keep the group manageable. Rep. Cole, did you have a question?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Sure, yeah. Thank you so much. And I'm so glad to see this being talked about because you highlighted exactly the issue we're dealing with is that our mandated reporting legislation has not been updated. And I have a bill right now on the wall in judiciary HAD, which would have targeted this in a more do it now kind of way for one piece of this. But this is also a really important and powerful way to elevate voices and hopefully lead to eventual policy change. But my question too is about how people who have been affected by forms of abuse that are now maybe older and adults, they can contribute to the conversation. And I know there are two spots for those roles, but even if you're not on the working group itself and you have sort of a story or something to share, especially if that story is related to policy that still exists today, it is actually still being perpetuated. I think we do need to make a vehicle that is really obvious for people who want to come forward and make a suggestion, figuring out how to do that. So that's just something that's going be on my mind, and I also welcome any suggestions.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. I think it would probably be up to the chair and the group itself to decide how they want to hear about lived experience. And I don't know if that would be in the form of public comment time at the end of each meeting. But it might be something you want to add to just flesh it out a little bit. That's a good idea. Thank

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you. You. Any other questions for the reporter?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Senator Golrang. Appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and we look forward to working on it. Thank you very much, and I really look forward

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: to seeing your finished product. I think it's going to be wonderful. So thank you.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Thank you. Have

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: a good afternoon.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Michelle, is it possible for you to steer us in the right direction or maybe pull up what the current statute is about maybe anticipated that question?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've already got it up, gonna ask you if you'd like me to walk you through it. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would be lovely. Alright, here we go.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Just to orient everybody, we are working in your title and title 33. This is chapter 49. I think this is the one, you know, there are many in this chapter, but I think this is the one that's going to kind of give you just a nugget to get the foundation there. So subsection A identifies who is a mandatory reporter under current law. So I don't know that I necessarily need to read those, but you have a variety of health care providers. So that kind of goes down the list. It's possible again because they haven't been updated a lot in recent years that you guys have created new positions and things like that or definitions of health care providers that maybe this isn't as comprehensive as So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we have advanced practice nurses now.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subdivision one are the health care providers. Subdivision two is an individual who's employed by a school district or an independent school or who is contracted by a district or an independent school. And then has a list of those folks, superintendents, headmasters, teachers, librarians, principals, school guidance counselors. Same thing, may be other you might want to hear from AOE. Childcare workers, mental health professionals, social workers. And again, when I'm looking at this, you can kind of, this is a drafter, indicates, I think, bit in terms of the age of things. Because usually when we're using specific terms to identify people, especially if you have a legal obligation under the law. And if you violate that duty, that obligation, it's a crime. If you don't comply with the reporting requirements, it's a minor misdemeanor. There's no jail time, but it's a fine only, 500 fine. And unless you're doing it with the intent, you don't report because you're intending to kind of hide something and then there's a higher penalty and there is some prison time. But usually we'll further drill down and we'll cite if they're licensed under state law or if they're defined under state law, we'll provide a reference there. And I don't really see much of that in here. So mental health professionals, social workers, probation officers, employees and contractors or grantees of AHS who have contact with clients, police officers, we don't even use that word in statute. We use law enforcement officer, we have a definition under law. Camp owner, camp administrator, counselor, member of the clergy, but we'll get there is an exception for that. Employee of the Office of the Child Youth and Family Advocate. Subsection B is just a, what is a KNOP? Subsection C is kind of the heart of it. Any mandated reporter who reasonably suspects abuse or neglect, and those things are defined in Chapter 49, of a child shall report in accordance with the provisions of the reporting section within twenty four hours of the time the information regarding the suspected abuse or neglect was first received or observed. So there's a time period there. Subsection D is that the Commissioner is to inform the person who made the report whether the report was accepted as a valid allegation of abuse or neglect because once you get to them, it's addressed in an act one for people who only go through it once it kind of comes in and they decide whether they're going to accept it. It'll go on a track of whether it's an assessment or an investigation, depending on the outpatients and the information they have. Whether an assessment was conducted, if so, whether a need for services was found, and whether an investigation was conducted, and if so, whether it resulted in a substantiation. Subdivision two is upon request commissioners to provide relevant information concerning a person's report to a person who made the report and is engaged in ongoing working relationship with a child or family who is the subject of the report. Subdivision three provides some penalties for disseminating information that they are not at liberty to disclose. Is pretty kind of standard in a lot of places where information is confidential to certain folks and there are penalties for violation. Subdivision four is a list of things that the Department may withhold. So it's information that could compromise the safety of the reporter or the child or family who was the subject of the report or specific details that cause the child to experience significant mental or emotional stress.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You might be getting to it, but I just was noticing that it talked about who it's reported to, but it didn't say anything about law enforcement. So if the report's made to DCF, they have an obligation, if there are certain conditions met, to report to law enforcement. Is that it might be And I think it's elsewhere

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in terms of that. And as you well know, there can be a DCF investigation and a criminal investigation going on at the same time, depending on the circumstances of the allegations. Subsection E is that any other person that's not listed, but who has reasonable cause for relief that any child has been abused or neglected can report or cause a report to be made in accordance with the section. Subsection F is some limited immunity there. So any person other than someone who is suspected of child abuse who in good faith, Good faith is just a standard that we use oftentimes in some immunity legislation. You probably remember it from the Good Sam Law on reporting drug overdoses. So reports in good faith is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred as a result of making that. So we oftentimes include these immunity provisions to encourage reporting to appropriate authorities. Subdivision two is that if you have an employer, they're not to essentially retaliate against the person for making a report. Subsection G is the name and identifying information about either the person making the report or any person mentioning the report is confidential unless the person, if you are calling in to make a report, it's confidential unless you could waive that confidentiality if you're the one making the report. Or a Human Services Board proceeding. So one of the options through appeal at a certain stage is that you can appeal your substantiation to the Human Services Board. And so at that point, they're taking testimony, they're hearing from witnesses. Would not apply for the confidentiality would not apply there or judicial proceeding results from the report. So it could be something in the criminal division or it could be something like a CHIN's petition in the family division. Subdivision three is that if a court after hearing finds probable cause to believe the report was not made in good faith and orders Department to make the name of the reporter available. So if someone was unfortunately had a vendetta against someone. And Subdivision four is a review has been requested and the Department has determined that identifying information can be provided without compromising the safety of the reporter or the folks who are mentioned in the report. Subsection H is your penalty section. So as I had mentioned, the baseline it is because when you use the word fine, that indicates a criminal statute. If you see the word assessed a civil penalty, that's also a violation of state law, but that's civil. So it doesn't appear on your criminal record. But if you see fined, then that means that it is a crime. And fined only, when it says and there's not any term of imprisonment, is automatically a misdemeanor. Subdivision two is a person, if they violate and they don't report with the intent to conceal abuse, neglect, then it's still a misdemeanor, but it provides for six months and up to a thousand dollar fine. And then three is just oftentimes standard language that we put in there that while, let's say, someone could be found in violation of this, it wouldn't necessarily preclude a prosecution under any other provision of criminal law that the person might fall under, like loyalty to the child or something like that. Subsection I is a person may not refuse to make a report required on the grounds that making an report would violate a privilege or disclose a confidential communication. Except Subsection J, which is that a member of the clergy shall not be required to make a report if the report will be based on information received and communication that is made to a member of the clergy acting in their capacity as a spiritual advisor, intended by those parties to be confidential at the time that the communication was made, intended by the communicant to be an act of contrition or a matter of conscience, and required to be confidential by religious law, doctrine or tenet.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. Madam Chair, you, Mayor.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Just to be clear, so with respect to the other folks who may have privilege or disclosure, for example, an attorney, a client comes to me if I'm an attorney and says, I've thrown something through a store window. I don't have to report it. It's attorney client privilege. They come to me and say that they were involved in child abuse or neglect. As an attorney, I would be required to report that, that the attorney client privilege would not

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be applicable in that instance. I don't think attorneys are mandatory reporters, or you're just saying using it as I'm an

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: using that example, but that's only for the people listed.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. The people who it only finds so for certain people who are mandatory reporters. Gotcha.

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

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So subsection K is that when a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect of a child, in a manner that is not contained in subsection J, then they are required to report. And then L was something that was, I think, added fairly recently, which is just to clarify that if you have a secondary school that is providing condoms and its health services to students, that that is not a violation of the abuse and neglect laws.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Somebody who would claim that might be, Somebody may have. That's why that exists there.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did not snap that bill. I didn't remember. You've done it in just the last several years, I remember. I'm sorry, which? Provision that is an L, just the clarification that the provision of condoms in the health services of a school is not considered to be abuse or neglect. I am guessing that when that law was adopted to make those services available to teenagers in secondary school, that perhaps a concern was raised that someone might interpret it that way. All

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: those things, there's been many adjustments to that. So when we added the Office of Child Youth and Family Advocate, you can see that they're now included as a mandated reporter. So we did that whenever. That's the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: entire statute, not just original. Oh, I see.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's the whole statute.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's funny that it right behind there, so it gives the impression to me as a reader, that's all the legislative.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's all the legislative. That's like when you guys say, when did they add this, you know, whatever? Then I can go in there and it gives

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: me the crew

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and I can

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go track it down.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But I see what you're saying because it says It's right before Wait. It's like it's a run on sentence

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: A paragraph.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's just how we get it from the publisher. Yeah. Yeah.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So that gives us some background, you know, with which, essentially I think one of the things that we will need to think about is whether we give them some direction about the things to look at. Right now, it's just wide open, and they can report back on anything. And I think that maybe a little bit of direction is probably helpful for a group that's getting together and they want to know what they're supposed to do. And we always add the caveat, anything else that the committee considers. Okay, that's helpful. All right, so can we move just to a quick review of Act 154? Jordan,

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: thought actually before I do that, I thought it might be helpful if I and I'm hoping it didn't have a date on it, I think it's correct and updated. But DCF has a flowchart. And I thought it might just be here, especially if you're a visual learner, of look and see how things kind of happen through the system. And it might help a little bit when I start to walk through F-one 154 because it amends some sections, skips others, and so it might feel a little disjointed otherwise.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Do you agree, call, a proper added part of the statute you were just showing us? What's the reference to what title?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's Title 33, Section forty nine sixteen. Forty nine sixteen. Mhmm. You mean a good word? We're just starting a new one.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Oh, oh, starting a new one. Okay.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I just wanted to kind of show you this because everything that they're talking about in S two thirty nine for the group to be looking at isn't that on here. But the reason why I wanted to show it to you is that Act 154, which the General Assembly adopted in 2024, addresses these internal DCF policies. And so I thought it just might be good to take a quick look at this and I can provide it to you. It's just a link on the DCF website. Can provide it to Laurie if it's helpful. So you see right here, you get the intake report, right? So that's the mandatory reporter or someone else calling in and giving a report of suspected abuse. So if there's not enough information or somebody is making a report about something, like as Senator Golrang said, just seems more to be around resources or poverty and not actually neglect impacting the child or whatever, then it's not accepted. But depending on the circumstances, and DCF can talk to you more about this, it may be that they offer services to the family. If they accept the report, then you move on down here. And as I mentioned, there's two kind of tracks. There's the assessment, which is kind of the lower level, how can we kind of support this family? Then you have the investigation where there are some things that are required to become investigations like sexual abuse or just the allegation that was made kind of triggers. There's enough information, there's corroboration, things like that, that it may into an investigation. Something can be started as an assessment and turned into an investigation, depending on the information that they receive. And so then there's all these different avenues they can go based on the investigation or the assessment and how they typically operate in terms of whether or not they determine there's a low or moderate risk, whether or not something is substantiated or not, and then all of this for how it goes to a case social worker to provide services for the child and perhaps the family. And then you go down and you get into all the stuff around chins in terms of disposition. Over here is that you have kind of the due process things, and that is addressed in some of Act 154 that we'll go through. So if someone is substantiated, meaning that their name will be placed on this registry. Remember, the registry is not a public registry the way that the sex offender registry is a public registry, most of it. But if you are substantiated, then there are processes. You're provided a lot of due process. You have the right to an administrative review. You have then, beyond that, a right to a fair hearing before the Human Services Board. And then beyond that, you can appeal that to the court. So I just kind of wanted to give you that little snapshot in hopes that it is helpful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it is helpful because it's helpful to see the context in which one decision might lead to another. So a change in this from whatever recommendations that might come from this group. So a change in that part of the statute, what implications that might have for this other part of the statute, and what happens after those reports are made.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There you go. So I will reiterate, I did not track this. So I read it yesterday when Laurie sent me the meeting notes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, this is the same No, it's not the same group because this was twenty Oh, twenty twenty four. So it is the same group. Yeah. Yeah. People here. Us. It wasn't twenty four, five, So 2620

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the report came in, I think at the December. And so I won't take up too much of your time, but I'll just kind of hit the highlights so you can kind of see the areas where, because I assume you'll have somebody from DCF come

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: in So to talk to you about their

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section one is just amending the responsibility of the Department with regard to these investigations to say that when they're investigating complaints, that it's supposed to be clear when, whether, and how names are placed on the Child Protection Registry. Section two is the purpose of the subchapter and Subdivision 5 is just a technical change. Subdivision 6 is to ensure, that in DCF's efforts to protect children from abuse and neglect, the Department also ensures that investigations are thorough, unbiased, based on accurate and reliable information weighed against other supporting information or conflicting information and that it's adhering to due process requirements. Section three is amending the definitions. So this is an important one. So the definition of substantiated report. Right now, you'll see that the standard for that means that the Commissioner or the Commissioner's Desumee has determined that after an investigation, based on accurate and reliable information, that and you'll see the struck language. I don't know if I can get Yeah, I can kind of get both on there. That would lead a reasonable person to believe. And then what's changed there is then where there is a preponderance of evidence necessary to support the obligation. So essentially what it was doing is going from kind of a reasonable person standard. So when you think that's oftentimes used in negligence actions. So what would a reasonable person do if they had a certain duty and then they violated that duty? Would it be reasonable? And it's changing that to preponderance of the evidence. So that's the burden of proof requiring that the claim that is made is more likely than not. And when you think of preponderance of evidence, it's like 51%. Right? So it's just over the line there. So if you're thinking, I do mostly criminal law. So preponderance of the evidence is kind of the lowest standard, right? If you're talking about civil litigation, just like 51%, right? There's an intermediary that's clear and convincing sometimes you might see and use that, which is a little higher standard. And then when you're talking about whether or not convicting somebody of an offense, that's beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you kind of think of those three, this is kind of the lowest, the preponderance of the evidence rather than using a reasonable person's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's lower, but it's higher than reasonable person to believe. Is that right?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a little bit like apples and oranges of how you're looking at it. What a reasonable person would do in that duty is part of assessing whether or not the evidence shows by preponderance of the evidence that somebody has neglected a child, if that makes sense. Yeah, does. Yep. So it's not exactly, it's not like changing out preponderance of the evidence for clear and convincing or something like that, because the preponderance of the evidence is just that. It's weighing the evidence and saying most of the evidence leads us to this determination rather than saying, would a reasonable person engage in this behavior? So it's the reasonable person stuff is focused on the person's conduct, and the preponderance of the evidence is focused just on that. What kind of evidence do you have to prove the allegation? So Section four is our procedures for investigation. You see changes at the bottom of page on subdivision for determination of the identity of the person alleged to be responsible for the abuse or neglect and investigators shall use best efforts to obtain the person's mailing and email address. There's a few provisions in here about just because one of the key points to all of this and making sure people's due process rights are protected is making sure that proper notice is given to and received by the person who is alleged to have engaged in abuse or neglect. And so you'll see a few of these little things. I won't go into them much, but it's just around notice and making sure you could email, mailing address, things like that. Next one is at the top of page five is supposed to be including an investigation. Any data deemed pertinent, including any interviews of witnesses made known to the department? Next one is on Section five on the Child Protection Registry. And so this talks about placement on the registry. The first changes are just technical. I would say same with SBUC. Okay, so I would say the next, the most important is going down to subsection E, and this is for the Commissioner to adopt rules for the registry. As you can see, there already was a requirement and already rules on this, but you kind of built this out a little bit and added a couple of things on here so that as part of the rules, rules to address when, whether, and how names are placed on the registry and standards for determining child protection level designation. Because when they are determining whether to substantiate someone, there are different levels for the substantiation. So there might be something that is a neglect case that is a certain level versus a sexual abuse case would be at a different level. And those levels will relate to the ability for that person who is substantiated to be able to petition to expunge their records off of the registry, for which there is a process for that. And when I talk about expunging, it means destruction of the record, you're gone. There's no record of it at all. So it's as if it did not occur. Very different from sealing a record, whereas it's not public, people can't access it, but it's still there somewhere. But this is expungement. So Section six is challenging a substantiation. So as I mentioned earlier, there's quite a lot of process and ability to appeal a substantiation. You'll see in the first subsection A on information that the Department is to provide to the person alleged to have abused or neglected a child, that subdivision for the registry child protection level designation to be assigned to the person and the date that that person would be eligible to seek expungement of their information on the registry. It is not there forever. Top of page nine, also just to advise them of ways to contact the department for further information. Subsection B is just around notice requirements and how you provide notice. Subsection C provides some changes in the timelines. So you see a person whose conduct is the subject of a substantiation determination can seek, and this is the first second, I guess this is the first second look at the substantiation, right? So the Commissioner has made a substantiation. If you want to essentially appeal it, the first one is to seek an administrative review of the Department's determination. And right now they have to notify DCF within fourteen days or let me do it, not now. This is how it was before the Act. So it changed from fourteen days to thirty days, so a little more time. And then you'll see the Commissioner can grant an extension past the thirty day period for good cause, not to exceed sixty days after the department sent the notice. The rest are in c are technical. Subsection d with regard so c is that you make the request. D is that holding the administrative review conference. That was changed from thirty five to sixty days after receipt of the request for review. They have to hold that hearing within sixty days of the person who's being substantiated requests it. At least twenty days prior to that review, Department has to provide the person alleged to have abused or neglected the child with information. They have to get a copy of the redacted investigation file and has to contain sufficient unredacted information to describe the allegations and the evidence relied upon as the basis to the substantiation because the person has the right to come and essentially defend themselves and argue as to why they should not be substantiated. Top of page 11, if the Administrative Review Conference isn't held within sixty days due to good cause shown, again, kind of standard language that we use, an extension can be authorized by the commissioner. Subdivision two, if someone doesn't respond, so basically somebody's requested a review and then the department reaches out to kind of schedule one of these administrative reviews and they don't respond, then they don't have to obviously hold the hearing and the person who's placed on the registry. Subsection E is just changing that language again, what we talked about going from a reasonable person standard to preponderance of the evidence. I just want to note that it's the department that has the burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence the child has been abused or neglected by the person. Even though there's been a substantiation by the department, the burden doesn't then switch to the person alleged to have abused the child. It's still the Department has to they the burden of proving that. Language at the end of that section is just that by request, you can do it by video conferencing. Subsection F, you see there language that's underlined Department Information Pertained Investigation that's obtained by the reviewer outside of the review meeting is to be disclosed to the person who's seeking the review. So just think about it in terms of, again, with criminal law. Prosecution gets something, discovery requires them to share it with the defense. Subsection G, I don't think there's any changes other than a word change, but you see that there is a requirement that after you have the conference, the administrator has to act. So they have to reject the substantiation, accept it, or place the substantiation on hold and direct the Department for further investigation. Subsection H, if the administration accepts Administrative Reviewer accepts the Department's substantiation, then the registry record is made immediately. If they don't, then there's no record made. Then within seven days after the decision to reject, accept or to place the substantiation on hold, the administrative reviewer is to provide notice to the person. So you have the conference within seven days to have to issue the opinion. And then within seven days of issuing the opinion, they have to make sure that they have notified the person. Section seven is the Human Services Board hearing. And I think this might be the only little kind of technical tweak to this. But just as I mentioned, after the administrative review, there is the ability for the person to appeal for a fair hearing before the Human Services Board. Section eight is the petitions for expungement. So rules are to be adopted by the Department with regard to expungement. A lot of this was just taking out, I remember, I think I actually did taking out this language that was when you guys were working with this stuff, like back in the early aughts, and you kinda had to figure out how to fold people in and who it applied to, but it's so far gone. It doesn't matter at this point. So I just note that the existing law so if someone is seeking to expunge their record, they have the burden of proving that a reasonable person would believe that they no longer present a risk to the safety or well-being of children. So as opposed to in the other cases where the state bears the burden of proving that they should be substantiated, if they want to expunge the records, they have the duty to prove that they are no longer a threat to children. There's just new language here at the top of page 15 that the Commissioner's decision to deny an expungement petition is to contain information about how to prepare for future expungement requests. So it's not like you just get one shot and if they don't agree to it then that you can reapply for expungement at a later time. Changes to subsection C are just around hearing process and being able to do it electronically. Subsection D is that you can't seek review for expungement more than once every thirty six months. So you have to let a period of time go by for circumstances to change. I think E is just technical. Subsection, I mean, section nine, and this is on automatic expungement of registry records. So on the earlier ones, you have to petition to do that. It's not automatic. On this, when we're talking about kids who were substantiated when they were very there is a provision for automatic expungement. So you see the registry increase concerning a person whose conduct was substantiated for behavior occurring before the person reached 10 years of age are to be expunged when they reach 18. As long as they haven't gotten additional substantiations after that time. Section 10 is just on rulemaking, Okay, adopt rules and all this stuff we just told you to do. You'll note that it's rules requiring notice and appeal procedures for alternatives to substantiation and rules implementing 49.62 and it wrote that down somewhere with the actual terms that was. And that's on use of registry records is the 4916C, and E is when names are placed on the registry and the levels of substantiation. Section 11, report. So on or before November 15, DCF is to file a written report with your committee as well as health and welfare, examining the department's capabilities and resources necessary to safely, securely and confidentially store interviews that were recorded during a child abuse and neglect investigation. So there will be taped interviews with children who are suspected to have been abused or neglected. And so this is around what do you do with those? How do you catalog them? How do you assure the confidentiality around those? Subsection B is to include the Department's proposed model policy of detailing interviews that should be recorded. So when should you record them and the storage safety and confidentiality, as I mentioned. Section 12. This is requiring the DCF in consultation with AHS, AOE, DMH, Parent Representation Center, Voices for Vermont Children, to submit written report to this committee and to health and welfare on the progress towards establishing a centralized internal substantiation determination process, rules establishing substantiation categories that require entry onto registry and alternatives to substantiation that don't require entry into the registry. And then finally, creating procedures for how substantiation recommendations are made by the department district offices and then how they're made by central office. So looking at are there differences in how they are making those determinations? B, it's just that there's to be any recommendations in legislative forms if they have them. And then on or after 01/15/2026, to present the report to you. I think that's so DCF will be in here on that. And if Laurie needs a link to that report, it is on your website. So if you go on the legislative website under reports, you can find it there. So it's there. And that took effect in 09/01/2024. We should look back and see what report they provided us previous year about

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the maintenance of record, video records. Yeah. Same. I remember that was an issue when we did the bill. They didn't have a technological way to do that. That seemed reasonable at the time. So we don't know what solution they came up with, but we should check. Okay, that was really helpful, Michelle, because it helps give us a full picture of the impact of what happens if we, in the future, if we're going to task this committee with something in the future, what happens with the work that the recommendations that they make and what we may or may not take up next year to address that.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did want to make one correction as you had asked the statute that I was going through. Section 49.13, not 49.16. 49.16 is the registry. Again, if it's helpful, I can send everybody a link to the chapter or Yeah, sure.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That'd be great. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for Michelle? Okay, great. Thank you, Michelle.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: Appreciate it. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're going to hear from DCF both about 01:54, and then we'll start to take some testimony on February and line up some witnesses about that. But I guess a couple of the things that I'd like you to be thinking about in advance, because the bill's not very long. Of course, we can make it longer here in the House, but is whether we should give them guidance about what it is that we'd like them to be reporting back what to include in their report, and being reasonable. Remember, they only have a few months to do this work. And then also, who should be on that committee? I think that it's front loaded with advocacy organizations, which are all good. But we're not necessarily hearing from the people who are actually charged with actually making the reports. So I think that it would be unwise for us not to include people who are charged with being required reporters on the committee. And if we can get the department to cover the per diems of the people with lived experience, I think they should be moved up to the committee and not just be consulted with and do like we did in June. Hopefully, we can get a fiscal note that says there isn't any fiscal impact. So we'll start to take up witnesses on this and look at what the requirements are for the reporting on 154. And we should look at both of those reports and see what's been said. Okay. So Ray and I are going to go to House Education Committee at three And representative arsenal from judiciary has changed from two to 02:30. So we're going to take a brief break right now just to let people know what's up on tap. Have the do we have the

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: proposed amendment? Didn't see anything. I have it.

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: I don't know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think she sent it in an email. She did. All that email she sent to We've just forwarded to House Human Services, Jubilee. Thank you. Don't know if

[Sen. Martine Gulick]: It has to be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: an amendment. I can't believe I have never noticed that. I look at this statute all the time in my work because it's what governs it. And yeah, no, it's a very important oversight that's been sitting there for like forty years. So tomorrow we are going to be hearing in last year's budget bill. You recall earlier in the second, as we do, I don't know, it seems like forever, we've been having these discussions about nursing facilities, extraordinary financial relief. We heard a bill on the floor, I don't remember if it was last week or the week before, about private equity in healthcare. And so we actually asked that question. We were kind of the head of the healthcare committee on that in terms of asking the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living for information about So they've confirmed that they will be here on Wednesday. And then we are trying to schedule witnesses for S one fifty seven, which is the recovery residence bill. And just to refresh people's memory and for those who weren't here, there is a certain section of statute that we sort of put in on a trial basis. And this is around the whole question about landlord tenant law. And is it a residential program? Or is it an apartment or a house that people rent? And so did a little trial thing. And if we don't do anything, that expires. And so the Senate took up this bill and passed it over to us. So we're gonna start to take testimony on that this week. And then we have S two forty three, which is about language justice. To be honest with you, I haven't read the bill yet, so I'm not sure. And we have JRH five, nine. I can't tell if the thing's right on it. I I said this on Friday. I need to figure out what we need to do about that. I'm not sure if we just start taking testimony and treat it. It's treated as a bill. I don't know what impact that it has, but we'll take testimony on it. And Jubilee just forwarded the amendment that members of judiciary will be offering. They wanted an opportunity as a committee to review the proposed amendment that representative Arsenal had prepared themselves. And they had not done that yet, they were running a little behind schedule. So that's why they asked for a little bit later. Laurie, we can