Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Committee this Friday morning, sixth, and we're taking up a bill eight six two eight. We do have on the agenda to vote on h five six six, but I know there's at least one member who's testifying in another committee right now. And and so we'll do H six twenty eight first, which we have a couple witnesses in the walk through. Hopefully, fairly straightforward bill. It seems that way. But I will turn it over to Michelle.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you for being here, Michelle. Sure. Thank you. So good morning for the record. Michelle Childs, Office of Legislative Council. I'm working at H six twenty eight as introduced. So we're working in Title 15 under the abuse prevention chapter and the civil protection orders. And what this bill does is makes a couple amendments to the final relief from abuse orders, it's not affecting the temporary emergency orders. So we're just working in section eleven oh three. So first change is on page two. Subsection C, which starts with the intro language on line six, is that the court is to make such orders as deems necessary to protect the plaintiff, children or both if the court finds the defendant has abused the plaintiff and And then subdivision B, you'll see there on line 10 is that the defendant is currently incarcerated and being convicted of one of the following certain types of offenses. And this is changing incarcerated to under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. So you'd still have to have that conviction. We still have to have the C1. So it's just changing it from the person who's incarcerated for those offenses or if they're it's more broadly that they're under the supervision for those. The next change, the language, kind of intro language starts on page two. So looking at subdivision C2, this is the list of things that the courts can include in the order. So things like that the defendants to refrain from maybe coming within a fixed distance of the plaintiff, maybe that they vacate the family home, things like that. You'll see on page three, there's a new subdivision F. And again, these are all discretionary for the court. So it's just tools that are available that can be a condition of the relief from a lease order. And this is adding new language that it would be an order that the defendant continued to pay household bills for which the defendant was responsible at the time that the plaintiff requested the order for a fixed period of time. I want to draw your attention to subdivision E, which is current law. Right now, provides that if the court finds the defendant has a duty to support the plaintiff, they can include in the order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's living expenses for a fixed period of time not to exceed three months. So I think what you'll hear from probably some of the witnesses who had requested this change is the differences between these two. So the new subdivision F is like so if my partner was responsible for paying the mortgage on our home and I paid for the utilities that F is specifically directed at, included in the order could be that they continue to pay that mortgage for a fixed period of time. But I just wanted to kind of note the little small differences between E and F. Witnesses can talk to you about why they feel that that change is the additional authority there is needed. But I'll notice that in subdivision E, there is the requirement that the court find that the defendant has a duty to support the plaintiff. And also, the fixed period of time is limited to three months, and those elements are not in F. And that's it.

[Speaker 0]: Hey. Is now the time to talk about the other suggestion as far as codifying the ruler?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, the thing I sent you this morning? Yeah. Or I I just frung that on you because I was just going. It was just something I put out there because I was reviewing some of the case law to see whether or not there was anything helpful around the perm interpretation of two e, you know, and why that might differ from from what you have in the new language on two f. So there is there was a case where the there was a discussion around, when you, when someone requests an extension of an order. So let's say if the the initial order is for a year and you can go in and there is language currently in law that you can ask for the order to be extended. And there was discussion about, well, when do you have to ask for that order to be extended? Does it have to be before the order expires? Is it supposed to be just like right exactly at that day that it's expiring? Or could you do it afterwards? So if it expired and then a week later, you're asking for the extension of the order. And the court said that it could be before, at or after. So I don't think it would change anything substantively by putting in that. I just kind of thought to myself, well, it would be better to just clarify that in statutes if someone doesn't have to rely necessarily on the court's ruling?

[Speaker 0]: I defer

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: to the vice chair.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Hypothetical situation. Stay at home parent, the other parent is the breadwinner, the stay at home parent is the one doing the abusing. They have to leave the house. The person making that has the income have to pay for that person even though they're the ones that are abused?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Let me go to your scenario. So stay at home person

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: This is the abuser.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Is the defendant. They don't have any income.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Plaintiff is the income, the breadwinner, then they file. I don't think that there's anything in here about that I can think of, but I have to think about it. I never really thought about it because this is about what the plaintiff can get in their relief from abuse order. It's not about the opposite. That makes sense. So it would be the person who is bringing in the income is the plaintiff in this case. The defendant who is the stay at home person could be ordered to vacate the family household. There's nothing in the language around the protection order that says you have to.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I didn't know if something in here alluded to it or something we already had. I'm not looking to change it. I'm more curious than anything.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I think those would be the good questions for the practitioners, for the court to kind of say these are the kind of scenarios that we see and what might happen there. It could be you know, a separate fit, like a separate family, you know, family court action in terms of support if they're married been living together for a long time, but not necessarily, I think, part of this order.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, good. Thank you. That's my guess. So

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: subsection F makes a lot of sense, looking more at changes to eleven oh three on page two. So, Okay, dependent is currently new language under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. So I would sort of interpret that. That could be furlough. It could be patient, a number of different things, probably, and has been convicted of one of the following. So I think the way I would read that currently, that conviction could be any time. So I could have been convicted of a domestic assault from thirty years ago and currently be on supervision under DOC for a DUI. Is that am I reading that right?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I understand what you're saying around I mean, I think the plain language indicates that. I wanna look to see whether or not there's been an interpretation, anything different by the court by somehow tying the incarceration to the particular crime there. But in plain reading, it doesn't it doesn't read that way to me. So I wonder if you want to clarify or not.

[Speaker 0]: But this is waiting on that as well.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Not that familiar with it, I guess. Could there be some sort of family court or preliminary divorce order or anything that could conflict with this? Paying financially, who's responsible for the bills, Because you're looking at setting separation,

[Speaker 0]: now you have.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so if there is, and again, would be for Judge Zone or the judges or some of the practitioners who are working to talk about what they see in practice, but if there is an existing parental rights and responsibilities order, parent child contact, there's things around who pays what bills, things like that, the court's going to be able to look to that around

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: If it's in the same court.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean like if the divorce order was issued in Washington County and then the APO The 100, what

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: would it take? I would assume the chief reporter would

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, is not the emergency. No. This is the one where the defendant is present and able to respond. So this is for the final. I think those kinds of things about how they true that up, what they look to, the information that they have. But this is not related to the emergency where they don't have all the information at their disposal to take a look at.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I was going to ask a question kind of, I think it's around the same thing Tom was saying that in divorce proceedings, already have a system in place as far as who pays what. I mean, I think in a nutshell, it goes, you make this, you make this, you make more. Okay. I mean and are we are we reinventing the wheel? But not that this is a bad idea, but are

[Speaker 0]: we reinventing the wheel when we can possibly lean on that language that's already being being implemented?

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if there is an order already, it's mostly going to be that you continue to comply with the family division's order around payment and what you're doing. Right? And so it's just gonna be that's gonna continue in force. I think what you're talking about is maybe flipping flipping the script, kinda going back to your earlier question.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: No. I'm just thinking I mean, I'm divorced. I've, you know, had child support payments and and whatever, and I'm I'm just thinking that and my ex didn't have any income at the time. I'm just thinking that, you know, real basic it came down to what I made, what, you know, what she made, and there's state calculations that figure it out. And I didn't know if

[Speaker 0]: this is reinventing the wheel and we could just move that system.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have to think about that, I'm sure probably the witnesses and the folks who are working with this can talk to you about the scenarios and what they're seeing. But essentially, this new language is saying that if I let's say I file for an emergency, then a couple of weeks later, the time for the hearing on the final. Right? And if my thing is that, Okay, I have been splitting with my partner the household bills, and we have figured it out that he pays this percentage of them and I pay this percentage. This is simply saying that, again, the court has discretion here. The court's going to be looking at all of the evidence that's presented. This is not just the plaintiff at the emergency hearing or the emergency order is issued, but this is when both parties can be there and have an opportunity to be heard by the court, is that it would allow the judge to issue for a fixed period of time to say, all right, so defendant has been paying the mortgage for three years on this while the plaintiff just pays the utilities. And if you didn't do something like that, it could be that maybe I can't I'm the plaintiff. I can't afford the mortgage. That's why I have that arrangement with my partner is I pay the utilities and he pays the mortgage.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I didn't pick up on it earlier. So it sounds like the court still has a lot

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: discretion.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, definitely. Yeah. There's nothing mandated in here. It's that they're going to because these cases are so complicated. And so it's really about the authorization for the court to look at that. And I think, again, I think when the network had requested this information from the sponsors, this bill and sponsors, they had had practitioners who were saying the language that's currently in around paying living expenses is not quite addressing all the different scenarios that they see in practice.

[Speaker 0]: That was gonna be my next question, but

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I know that's for you, what's happening now.

[Speaker 0]: Tom, did you have

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: a question?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: Oh, yeah. Was just is there anything in here about ability of the defendant? Because clearly that could be affected. Right. And then the whole thing ain't.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Without knowing for sure, my assumption is that the court is looking at those kinds of things. I mean, when you're talking about adding the new F, these are things that the defendant was already paying at the time that the person filed for the order. So they have been paying this. Maybe they could say, Okay, I've been paying this, but now I've literally just lost my job last week. So my financial circumstances are different. And that is something that the defendant should present evidence to the court and say, yes, I was painting the mortgage. I just lost my job last week. And so then the court, again, is not required to be ordering that. They may say, okay, well, in light of that, let's look at what would be fair in this particular situation. Well, if they're under supervision of the department, correct? They're

[Speaker 0]: not working.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's not the only thing. Yeah. It could be that it could be under but also under c one a. It's that it's an or. So a so under c subdivision one, it's an a or b. So that there's a danger for future abuse or the person is under supervision by corrections for one of those violent instances.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much, and we'll go to a technical point and thanks. Thank you for being here.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Good morning.

[Speaker 0]: Good morning.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in support of H-six 28. I'm Charlie Lisserman, I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I'm also joined on this side here by Eddie Papp, who's the director of the Vermont Network's Legal Clinic. This bill includes two updates to Vermont's civil RFA statute, and these were issues that were identified by attorneys working with survivors through the Vermont Networks Pro Bono Legal Clinic. I'm gonna zoom out a little bit. I'm gonna talk about the reason why we're requesting these changes. And as always, you all have fantastic questions that I'm happy to answer, and Eddie can as well as share his perspective as a practitioner. So as you all know, RFAs are a credible legal tool for survivors. They are civil court orders requested by a plaintiff to protect their safety. So to obtain an RFA, the court must find that the defendant has abused the plaintiff and either there's danger of future abuse or the defendant has been convicted of one of the serious offenses listed in the statute and is currently incarcerated. So the examples of those offenses include domestic assault, L and L with a child, murder. And what this language proposes to do is replace currently incarcerated with currently under the supervision of DOC. So this proposed amendment would capture those who committed those serious offenses and are incarcerated, as well as those who serve shorter periods of incarceration or subsequently live in the community on probation or parole. As a result of plea agreements, it's common for individuals to serve relatively short sentences or even no time incarcerated for domestic assault. And so this revision would ensure that victims can also avail themselves of the protections in these cases. Even if a defendant is under DOC supervision, the risk of harm and the survivor's fear can remain very real. And in these situations, it may be more difficult for a survivor to meet that threshold of proving danger of future abuse, even though the underlying conduct was severe and could be recent. It's important to update the statute to close that gap and ensure that RFAs are accessible to survivors who need them. The second change that we're looking at, so through an RFA, survivors can seek a range of conditions of relief. They are all optional at the discretion of the judge. Some, not all, can be requested by the plaintiff. And it's really a menu that can address these very individual situations that come up when someone requests an RFA. So these include protective measures like requiring a defendant to stay a certain distance away from the plaintiff or to not contact the plaintiff. And when appropriate, RFAs can also include time limited conditions related to shared property, finances, and defendants. And so these conditions can address issues that come up such as parent child contact or child support, or determine who may remain in a formerly shared residence. And these conditions are very important in a variety of reasons. And like Vice Chair was saying, in cases particularly where the plaintiff and the defendant are not married, they can be especially important for addressing conditions that come up when there is no divorce proceeding. So these provisions are really essential because they provide clarity for both parties during the time of the order, they protect survivors, and they also help ensure that survivors have basic resources they need to live independently from their formerly abusive partner. Vermont network attorneys see gaps in how financial responsibilities are addressed in RFAs, which is what inspired this change here. Many survivors had household bills either paid or shared with their abusive partner prior to seeking an RFA. But when the order is filed, those payments often stop. And that leaves survivors suddenly fully responsible for rent or utilities on their own. For survivors, especially those with low incomes, this very abrupt financial burden can be quite harmful. It can lead to missed payments, damaged credit, or even the loss of basic utilities or access to a home, all at a time when survivors are really trying to regain safety and stability in their lives. So H-six 28 proposes explicitly adding, ordering a defendant to continue paying household bills they were previously responsible for at the time of the filing as an optional form of relief. And so this will permit survivors to request the relief and for judges to grant it at their discretion. Thank you for your time and your consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, page three, E and F.

[Speaker 0]: What's the difference between those two? I don't

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: think there's a lot of difference, but there's got to be some small thing that makes them different, because E says that bills will have to be paid up to three months and F stands for a fixed period of time. I guess what's the difference between E and F?

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes. So there are a couple of differences. So the first is that E requires a finding of a duty to support the plaintiff. F does not. E can be relevant to expenses that the defendant wasn't paying at the time of the RFA filing. E is about if we're already splitting the mortgage fiftyfifty and I file for an RFA. Pardon? F is. Yes, I'm so sorry. F? If we're splitting the mortgage and I file for an RFA, that one of the conditions of relief in the RFA can be that we continue splitting that mortgage. So you wouldn't need to find a duty to support the plaintiff in that case. And that's why it's only specific to the financial arrangements that were previously made by the people who are subject to the order.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I guess I can see a little different, but even if we didn't have, if F wasn't in there, the court could still make that decision of F.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So the bar is different because E requires that the defendant has a duty to support the plaintiff. That is not the case with F. So say

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: But if you get an order, isn't that the duty to support?

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Eddie, I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about what that duty to support threshold can look like.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Can you identify yourself for the record?

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Edward Warren, we can wait. I I

[Speaker 0]: would assume he's gonna be a company or anything.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Why don't we have you come into the witness here?

[Speaker 0]: I'll you.

[Edward Pope (Director, Vermont Network Legal Clinic)]: Edward Pope, Director of the Legal Clinic at the Vermont Network.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So that's why

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: guess just the difference between E and F. I don't my in lay terms, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see that much difference between myself, but Well, to me that there's

[Edward Pope (Director, Vermont Network Legal Clinic)]: Charlie's already said, he does have this duty to support requirement. It also does have the three month restriction. In practice, I've seen E used very, very infrequently. I'm also not familiar with any case law or statute that would specify exactly what the duty support means. And F allows for, F has language which is more akin to the interim domestic order, which courts will typically issue automatically upon the filing of the divorce, but not upon the filing of a parentage, because in a parentage matter, there wouldn't be any division of financial assets like there would be in a divorce. So this would offer that same sort of relief within the context of a relief from abuse order. As to your question previously, any of this type of relief that would be issued in an RFA would then be subject to modification in a related family court action pursuant to rule four.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So the bottom line here is that there is a gap right now for plaintiffs who have shared living expenses with the defendant. And this would provide the courts another option in that menu so that when these very individual cases come to them, they can make decisions that support a survivor's safety and feel appropriate to them.

[Speaker 0]: I'm still confused.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: And I'm also more than happy to talk one on one about it.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I'll try one more time. I'm sure it's me. So, E, if the court finds the defendant has a duty, they they they have to pay the plaintiff's living expenses for a fixed period of time not to exceed three months. What's the difference between that and an order that the defendant continue to pay the household bills? I don't see any difference myself. One Either way, they're being told that you have to pay x.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So one example that I can think of to try and articulate the difference might be that a defendant might have a duty to support the plaintiff if the plaintiff maybe doesn't have an income. Maybe they were restricted from working by the defendant. And that might greatly limit their ability to cover their household expenses on their own. Whereas in F, maybe the plaintiff has an income. They may not see a duty to support the plaintiff, but that the defendant and the plaintiff had existing financial arrangements that are discontinued as a result of this order. So it just opens up the judge's ability to look at the circumstances, the financial arrangements, the incomes of the parties, and make a decision about for this fixed period of time how these bills will be paid. I think it's also important to note that in these cases, the defendant and the plaintiff are often, they're being ordered to not contact each other. And so determining what these financial arrangements look like for the term of the order, when they cannot talk to each other and sort it out later, is very important for the clarity of the parties. Sure.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: So the way the law is now, and we we have e Mhmm. Could the court come to the determination of f the way it is now in in their final ruling, what what they determine needs to be done could already be f.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I think so there's that different threshold of the duty to support. But then what we've also experienced on our legal clinic is that E is very infrequently used, but situations relevant to F come up a lot. And so that's why that gap exists. And so I think at the very least, this provides some clarity about what that option can look like in a courtroom.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: I don't have an issue with it. I think they're the same thing.

[Speaker 0]: So isn't it essentially that, all right, if the defendant was paying these bills, you need to keep paying these bills for some period of time? That's exactly right. Whereas on the first one, it's not just the defendant fact that they're paying the hills. It's like they need, in fact, they may not be paying all the bills, but they find that you need to support this person for this three month period. Guess, you're right. It's pretty similar, but I can see it. Yeah, I buy that there was a gap, if that's what you're seeing in the actual practice. And if this closes the gap, the bottom line is the person is paying those bills, you need to keep paying those bills for some period

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: of time.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that's what E says.

[Speaker 0]: Well, not necessarily. It's not, it's pretty much.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Well, no, that's what the court determines. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think another important distinction in E is that what's happened in a case that where E is is applied, the defendant may not already be paying the living expenses or the house rent bills.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That was for Tom.

[Speaker 0]: I was

[Unidentified Committee Member]: saying that in E, if E is applicable, it may be the case that the defendant is not already paying the living expenses or certain household bills that they haven't been. Even though the court then finds that they have a duty to do that, they may not have been.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Which going back to my scenario, what if the defendant wasn't making money, doesn't

[Edward Pope (Director, Vermont Network Legal Clinic)]: have the job?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Then these are all options. None of this is required.

[Speaker 0]: Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So then the plaintiff would still have a big problem.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Yeah, we'll have Judge Zolleray come in. I think that he also add, since it would be, if he tells us that these are not different, then it's the opposite. Oh, I'm sure there's some difference in there, and I just can't see it. Yeah, Ian.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Yeah, and also more like a retaliatory I don't know if this came up. I was obstructed

[Speaker 0]: for a moment. But like

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: a retaliatory thing, like someone files an RFA and then their spouse then, well, well, I guess I'm not going to pay my half of the mortgage now kind of thing. There's that happening. But my question actually is I don't know who this is to. So under current practice, when we're looking at B, is the incarceration usually being linked to the conviction or is it just if they are currently incarcerated and they have a conviction in their record? Yeah, is there case law? What's the

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I will let Eddie kind of add any details. But yes, they are often, if not in all the cases that come through our legal clinic linked.

[Edward Pope (Director, Vermont Network Legal Clinic)]: I've never seen a Well, C1B is rarely used in general, but I've never heard of a scenario where the conviction is for something completely unrelated to the current incarceration or as proposed under this condition?

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I would agree with

[Speaker 0]: it, but I've never seen

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: it happen. How would you

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I feel like broadening it to any kind of supervision with DOC, there would probably be more instances than the incarceration, right? Just given how often people are incarcerated versus how often they are on probation. How would you feel about explicitly linking them?

[Edward Pope (Director, Vermont Network Legal Clinic)]: I don't think there's an issue with that.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: It's logical. It is logical. I would say that because it is not happening in practice, and also the reason why these particular offenses are listed in the statute is because they are the most relevant to domestic abuse. And so I feel like that is a logical takeaway, which is why it has played out in that way.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Makes a lot of sense. I think my concern in just trying to understand, in practice makes a lot of sense. But just because it's an either or, basically a plaintiff doesn't, if we just check those boxes, then there's no need for finding a danger of further abuse and broadening it to any kind of supervision, would feel more comfortable if we did an explicit link between the two. But that's just where I am.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yeah, I don't see an issue with that, if that would be clarifying.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Can I just So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just wanna make sure So is the suggestion that it would say something like the defendant is currently under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or has been for a conviction or related, you know, for a conviction of one of the following?

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: So the defendant is currently under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: is

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is being supervised for a conviction.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: As related to a conviction of one of the following or something like that. I don't know exactly what the wording would be.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know guys what

[Speaker 0]: are talking about. And

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: I think the broader language with incarceration makes sense. I think you could make a pretty compelling argument that even if

[Speaker 0]: it wasn't related to one of

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: these convictions, the guy sitting in jail right now for something, I feel more comfortable about that being broader. But if we're just going to go supervision in general, then making the connection makes more sense.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you still capture folks who are incarcerated.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Because they are under Because

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: they're under

[Speaker 0]: I guess that'd be the one place where if it's

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: not happening in practice, then it doesn't really matter. But you would narrow it in that one sense that the way it reads in current law, they don't need to be connected. The person could be incarcerated is going be completely different. So we would be narrowing it a little bit in that sense.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: But it sounds like that's not a concern. I don't believe that would be a concern. Would want to see the revised language. I'm kind of going through the scenarios in my head right now and thinking about, say, we're looking at one specific survivor, but the defendant armed a different former partner. I would just want to make sure that all of those kinds of situations are covered, but I believe they would be.

[Speaker 0]: Any other questions for Charlie? One question as far as whether are there other individuals you think that we should hear from on this? We'll get to Abzonne and anybody else from your perspective. If you could just let me know if you can think of that.

[Charlie Lisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I will think on it, but I think hearing from Judge Zone would be great.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, great. So we're going to hear from Kim McManus on hand. I just, like a reflex, put you on the agenda, Kim, even though it's probably fairly narrow since this is a civil kind of action. And I'm trying to find a hook so I haven't wasted your time. So maybe it's on the enforcement of violations of a protective board. But I'll let you whatever you wanna say on this. But I apologize if I brought you here and it's not within your realm. Over to you. Thank you, Kim. Thank you for that introduction.

[Kevin McDonough (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Wonderful introduction. For the record, Kevin McDonough's Department of State's Attorneys and Chairs. I always appreciate being put on the calendar, so feel free to just throw me on there all the time. So yes, we are to the side of this in the state's attorney's office, but we do see obviously considerable overlap, particularly in our domestic violence cases, where our victim survivors are also applying for relief from abuse cases. And so from our department's perspective, we can add that we are very aware that economic manipulation is a massive part of the power and control dynamic in abusive situations. Many times abusers use finances to control the victim knowing that they it's harder for them to leave if they do not have some financial underpinnings that will keep them safe. And then often victims are put into situations where they either don't file for a relief from abuse order, or if they do file one, they quickly ask for it to be rescinded because they are in dire economic situations. So from that perspective, we do appreciate this addition, widens what the court can consider as far as ordering for expenses to be paid. I would just like to bring up, and again, you'll have practitioners who will know, maybe be able to give you more detail, but when the discussion was going on about E and F and the duty to support, we have to remember that's a legal duty to support, not a moral duty. And in these situations, sometimes this is a married couple, sometimes this is roommates. So there's a very different standard there. Sometimes this could be a caretaker, someone who has a guardianship and lives in the home. So I think that's where when you're looking at reaching that duty to support, you have to show a legal duty there. And that is a higher standard than what would be required in F. And again, just to highlight, and you have many experts who can come in on this. We often see defendants control the household bills will often not have the victim on the billing statements. It's hard for them to even be able to pay the bills, that sort of thing. So F definitely captures those instances far more than E, but as vice chair was pointing out, there's definitely overlap. If this was a Venn diagram, there's going to be situations that overlap, but F definitely incorporates more scenarios.

[Speaker 0]: Any questions? Does that help? Yeah. So thank you, and thank you for actually being here. I didn't make a mistake having you come after all. Was not that it would ever be a mistake having Tim McManus testify. Let me just make that clear. No, that's very helpful. No, that is very helpful. And it does bring this into the context that these do overlap often with the criminal charges as well.

[Kevin McDonough (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: They do. And just to underscore that, if victims are fearful that the protective order is not going to protect them, that often can influence the outcome in our criminal case. So it definitely impacts our world.

[Speaker 0]: Right, appreciate that. Alright. Excellent. So so we will get judge zone A in, and I don't know if I can invite the defendant general's office. I don't know if they'd be interested, but they might be. So so I'll write that down, and we'll try to get those too. All right, thank you very much. So we're gonna now turn to H. Five sixty six. And if Michelle can join us again on that one, then you all should have draft number 3.1 scheduled for possible vote. Thank you. We do have one addition to this, one amendment to this. Thirty minutes. Yeah, no, I mean, just for everybody that we haven't seen, that we talked about yesterday. Do folks feel that we need to have Michelle actually walk through all of it or just a new language? I'm not seeing anybody saying let's look at it yet again. Just a new language. Alright. Over to you, Michelle.

[Michelle Childs (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. For the record, Michelle Chao, Office of Legislative Counsel, and we're looking at draft 3.2 dated just about an hour ago. The new language is all the way. And so this relates to recall that the initial proposal was on adult diversion program was to add eligibility for criminal municipal ordinance violations. You decided not to go there and broaden it holistically statewide at this point, but you did want to continue to support the AAG's work with the Burlington Community Justice Center and sending some of those types of ordinance violations to the Burlington Community Justice Center. And so you'll see on page eight, section three, I just added some session law because we don't want to go in and amend the statutory language just because of this kind of short term project. But I'm basically retroactively authorizing them to do it. So you can see starting on line 16, new session law. So notwithstanding the limitation in three VSA one sixty four a two. So that's the provision in current law that says what types of cases can go, and it talks about a violation of criminal statutes. I understand that the attorney general's office said, no, we think we can do it under that. But I think that's debatable. And and so I just wanted to make sure I'm not withstanding that. So it's clear that saying we're making an exception here that this is okay. So and it's just authorizing that program in Burlington. And from 01/01/2026 right? So it's operating now, through 07/01/2027. Willow had asked for it to be just for a period of a year, which was what their anticipation, but it can in consultation with a couple of the members there decided that, well, y'all actually won't be back as of 01/01/2027. So might as well give yourself a little more time to kind of figure out and consult whether or not you wanna extend that project or you wanna go towards moving to amend the statute to allow for statewide authorization for those types of programs.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Are there any questions on that or anything else with respect to the debt? Alright. Yeah. Go ahead, please.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: So I'm just wondering about the section right below, the effective dates. Because it's Saxon Law, it doesn't need to also add Okay, no it does. I'm sorry. Never mind, it was one of those. It was excellent. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Alright, so are we ready to move on this? He is ready. That's all. I will have two motions out of our department to put a couple, and that is a motion to approve the strike all amendment of draft number 3.1.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 3.2.

[Speaker 0]: 3.2. The

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Do you motion?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I make a motion to approve strike all amendment draft number 3.2. Second.

[Speaker 0]: All those in favor of the amendment, raise your hands. Any opposed? Alright. Now I'll take the motions that we report h five sixty six favorable with the strike fall amendment. May I a second? I'll take the motion, then we can have discussion. So moved. You'll second? I'll second. Perfect. Yeah. No testing discussion, please. I

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: think I've really enjoyed maybe that's I I found it very helpful hearing the testimony on this bill and the continuation of the discussion between Sealing and Sponson. I just want to note from my own perspective that we heard the term, it's a legal fiction between the concept of expungement and the concept of sealing. I would just push back that they are not the same. And even when we're talking about stealing and we're talking about expungement, there are two realms. One is the public sphere and how your criminal history is reflected in the public. And that I can see the argument around legal fiction. Other half of it is the use of it in law enforcement. That's where it's not a legal fiction. It does make a big difference if it's sealed or expunged. I don't think that that in any way impacts my support of the bill. But I just want it to be made really clear that having a sealed record for diversion could impact someone's opportunity to get a diversion offer in the future, something like that. And that's not a fiction. So given all that and all of what we heard, I think I'm actually moved more in favor of stealing than I was even earlier in the session as we've discussed more and more the importance of, in some ways, maintaining criminal records in very restricted ways and not destroying public records generally. So I just appreciate the opportunity that we've had to discuss it,

[Speaker 0]: and I'm looking forward to voting for it. Thank you. That's good clarification. Any other discussion?

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Go ahead, Barbara. Ian reminds me that I very much have concerns about the fact that we're sealing juvenile records and the whole concept of the juvenile justice system, which I know is not something we have implemented in this bill, but something that I found hard to support last year. And while that isn't in this bill, Ian reminding me of it definitely brings up my strong feelings of the need to look at going forward if it's hurting kids because we're CLA sponging and undoing the whole theoretical concept of our juvenile justice system.

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: Laura? Yeah. I personally think sailing is important and one of the big reasons is records, recidivism, you know, rates, and, you know, with the records and the information, trends can be seen, as far as, you know, what's happening out in the out in the real world, and in that way, we can react to that in here, potentially, to, you know, whether it's programs, laws, or whatever, to, you know, try to curb things. I think going forward, it's probably, it's gonna be a few years, you know, once we compile more information, you know, with this healing we've already done and with this. I I really think it's gonna be helpful in the long run and and and help people more than there there is some people that are gonna be damaged by it, but I don't I can't think of a word that's not quite as strong as that, but I I think overall it's it's going to be helpful in the juvenile justice world.

[Speaker 0]: Thanks, Tom, I agree. Anybody else? To the court, could call the roll? Arsenault? Yes. Dolan? Yes. Windham? Yes. House name, yes. Harvey? Yes. Malay? Yes. Oliver? Yes. Rachelson? Yes. Christie? Verditt? Yes. Malay? Yes. So as far as a reporter, if anybody who hasn't reported a bill yet, I'll give you first dibs. Tom, do you want to report? Okay, alright. Tram, I have questions for all your friends. We'll get some questions out there. Where are the municipal criminals? They got beautiful.

[Barbara Rachelson (Member)]: Why are we not?

[Speaker 0]: All right, great. Nate will help you make sure that you get the stuff that you need to have there, and I'm sure Michelle will help with whatever the I

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: was going to say something before we voted.

[Speaker 0]: What are you doing? You didn't talk with Stale, because I'm not going say.

[Ian Goodnow (Member)]: Are you doing a post vote explanation?

[Speaker 0]: Do want me to do

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: a post vote explanation?

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Will. A brief one.

[Thomas Oliver (Member)]: I I think you know, we started out with the Virgin. The Virgin was a one shot deal for a lot of years, and then they opened it up so people could have more than one stab at it. And then they wanted to get rid of it, and it became a problem when they start to expunge the record. And then now we're steal stealing it, but now you're gonna reveal that somebody maybe had been through diversion before. So I think we're slowly kinda coming into a a sweet spot, so to speak. I personally have always thought that the one shot deal of diversion with a complete expungement at that point was good. But I think this is a great problem, and it's very helpful.

[Speaker 0]: All right, so we have a big department coming to that one for about a half hour, I'd ask, just to keep it short. There are budget requests from the Human Rights Commission, because next week we have a busy week with a lot of budget presentations,

[Thomas Burditt (Vice Chair)]: with

[Speaker 0]: a presentation on Monday morning on criminal justice. It's Wednesday morning. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Was at the boy. It's telling you it's weak. So Wednesday morning, mainly focused on the 3B pilot, docket in Chittenden County. And a couple bills we're going be taking up, the no show bill of Representative Mount Rutland and Supervision Bill, I think. So anyway, busy week, but we'll adjourn now until 01:00 and go off live.