 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Wednesday, April 6th, and it is 9.10 a.m. And we are looking at S163 and actually relating to state court petitions for vulnerable non-citizen youth. And we're starting with a walkthrough of the film with our legislative counsel, Rebecca Wasserman. Good morning and welcome. Good morning, Becky Wasserman, legislative counsel. So I will do a walkthrough of S163, which relates to vulnerable non-citizen children. Just for some context, the legislature, I think, two years ago added some language in Title 14, which this bill is amending, which allowed for certain state courts to make special findings with respect to special immigrant juvenile status. And that is a status that is under federal law that allows immigrant children that are subject to those state courts who can't reunify with their parents due to abuse, abandonment, or neglect, and who meet other requirements under federal law to obtain lawful permanent immigration status. And what is somewhat different about this special immigrant juvenile status is that it is an immigration remedy that is, requires a state court order as a prerequisite to file for the petition with USCIS for that immigration status. So what that means is that the child that is seeking the status first has to ask what the federal law calls a juvenile court in the state where the child is living to make certain findings. And the federal law says that that court has to have jurisdiction under state law to make judicial determinations about the custody and care of juveniles. So what was put into law a couple of years ago was that the probate in family courts, because in Vermont, both probate court and family court share this definition, share this jurisdiction, and fall under that juvenile court definition under federal law, were given the ability to make these findings that are necessary for this immigration status petition by an immigrant child. The federal law also says that this status is available to youth who are unmarried and under 21. But in Vermont, that currently means that this is not available to a child when they turn 18 because that's when the court's jurisdiction here would end when a child turns 18. So the result of that, and one of the things this bill is trying to address, is having non-citizens who are Vermont between the ages of 18 and 21 who would otherwise meet the requirements under federal law and be eligible to petition for this status to be able to do so. So what this bill is, I guess, trying to do is address that, expand that jurisdiction of the state's guardianship provisions for that limited purpose of allowing Vermont courts to issue these special findings for non-citizen youth up to age 21. And it is also just generally amending the law that was put into place a couple years ago by removing all of the specific references to special immigrant juvenile status in statute and replacing it with non-citizen child and also at the same time clarifying that a child who meets these definitions can petition for these findings in any type of proceeding where the Vermont courts have jurisdiction over that child, not just in probate and family court. So that was a lot. I just thought it might be some helpful context before going through the bill. And I don't know if there are any initial questions before I start. Thank you. That was very helpful. This is new to us. I'm not seeing any hands. Anybody have a question or point? Thank you. Okay. So I'll start in section one of the bill, which is amending that the law that was put into place a couple of years ago, which is in title 14, chapter 111, sub chapter 14. And this is the new chapter that was put in about giving those findings for a special immigrant juvenile status. So that is, so the change that is being made here is amending the title and also you'll see throughout this whole section that from referring to special immigrant juvenile status and replacing it with vulnerable non-citizen children. And there are some definitions in subsection A that are being added to kind of clarify what that means here. So a child or children means an unmarried individual or individuals who have not yet turned 21 and who are not US citizens. A definition of court is added in subdivision two, which means a court that has jurisdiction over that child. And the definition says that it includes probate and family court, but it can also be any court that might have jurisdiction over that particular person. Subdivision three defines dependent on the court, which means that they're subject to the jurisdiction of the court, that a court that's competent to make decisions concerning the protection while being care and custody of a child for findings, orders or referrals to support that health safety or welfare of that child. Subdivision four defines non-citizen, which means any person who is not a US citizen. And then subdivision five defines similar circumstances, which is one of the, these are all relevant to the, what's required under federal law for these special findings, but similar circumstances is defined as a condition or conditions that have an effect on a child comparable to abuse, neglect or abandonment, including the death of a parent. And then finally, vulnerable is defined as there's reasonable cause to suspect that the child's health safety or welfare is in jeopardy due to abuse, neglect, abandonment or similar circumstances. And that the child and that the return of it to the child to their country, their parents country of origin would not be in the best interest of that child. Let's see any questions. So I will move on to subsection B. So subsection B is clarifying which state courts have jurisdiction to review a petition for these findings. So, and it is also sort of striking out the specifics to referring to the special immigrant juvenile status and the federal law. So it is more simplified to just give that jurisdiction to a court that a court reviewing a petition under the section shall have jurisdiction under Vermont law to make these judicial determinations regarding the custody and care of children. So that can be probate in family court, but it could also, for example, be criminal court if the child is under that court's jurisdiction. Subsection C is setting forth the procedure for a petition for these special findings for a vulnerable non-citizen child or a person that's interested in the welfare of that child and you'll see on page three. This is language that is sort of mirroring what is required under federal law for special immigrant juvenile status, although it does not specifically say that. So it says that the child may petition the court for special findings to protect the child and obtain relief from the underlying abandonment, abuse, neglect or similar circumstances. The court reviews the petition and any supporting affidavits and other evidence presented and issues findings of fact that determine whether the child is independent on the court or legally committed to or placed under the custody of a state agency or department or an individual or entity appointed by the court. The findings determine whether the child has suffered from abuse, neglect, abandonment or similar circumstances. The findings would also look at whether the child may be viably reunified with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect or similar circumstances. And then finally, the last finding would be that it's not in the best interest of that child to return to their home country or their parents previous country of nationality or last habitual residence. Questions? Let's see any yet. Okay. So subdivision two, so this was in current law but a party can also request that the court make additional findings that are supported by evidence and it was added here and Vermont law. A new subdivision C3 was added that also says that the court that is considering this petition for findings that the health safety and welfare of the child must be paramount concern to the court when it considers the best interests of the child. And when making the determination whether the child can be returned to their home country the court shall consider whether present or past living conditions will adversely affect the child's physical, mental or emotional health. Subdivision C4 is what I mentioned earlier about that sort of gap between a child who is 18 and 21. And so this is for the purposes of this section is saying that the term child shall include a person who is less than 21 years of age and who can sense to the appointment or continuation of a guardian after 18 years of age. So it can extend that guardianship beyond 18 years old however it requires that consent by the person is provided. Subsection D is adding a notice provision. So if the location, if the identity or location of the child's parents are not known the court has the option to serve notice using any alternative method of service that court determines is appropriate or waive that service. Subsection E is requiring the court to adjudicate these cases expeditiously when it is in the best interests of the child. And just moving to the top of page five it says that they shouldn't make determinations on any petition for special findings as soon as it is administratively feasible and prior to that child attaining 21 years of age. Subsection F is adding language that allows for a voluntary referral of the child to certain protective services including psychiatric, psychological, educational, occupational, so on. And it says that the child's participation in any referred service is voluntary. Barbara. Yeah, Rebecca, it's voluntary on the part of the child or on the part of the child. Somebody else is probably if somebody's eight or 10 where the child is making that decision or is also if they're being made a temporary ward of the court. The court is also, there's a garden that lie down look for somebody else. Yeah, there's a guardian, the court, I'm sorry, the child would be under a guardianship. And so I think in that case a guardian would be making those decisions. Thank you. Subsection G allows for additional available remedies under Vermont law. So it's saying that this section is not limiting a child under who meets this definition from petitioning for special findings under any other provision of law or from any other rights and remedies that are available to that child under law and subdivision two says that the section is not limiting the court from issuing similar findings of a fact to that what's described in the section in any other proceedings that concern that child. Subsection H says that the section shall be liberally construed to its legislative purpose and subsection I... Can I ask a question on this? There is a couple of questions on H. I mean, is that fairly standard? I haven't seen that kind of way. I mean, occasionally I have, but it seems actually a little odd to me. There's one question, but are there legislate, is there a statement of purpose that just isn't in this bill but is in the underlying law? There is not as an intent here in the next section, there is, I think there's a similar statement about it being construed to the best interests of the child. And so I think the idea is that the intent is to allow for a child to make these petitions to sort of meet the requirements of what is to make this petition for these findings that are a part of this petition to the US government for this immigration status. So I guess this language was added in by some of the advocates on this bill. So they might be better able to answer why it was necessary to put it in but I think the idea is to intend that a child can request these petitions under a wider scope of situations than just if they're under the jurisdiction of family or probate court. Yeah, it just mainly seems odd that if we don't have a statement of purpose, where do you find that purpose? But okay, I'll ask witnesses. Thank you. Yeah, so that might be helpful to include an intent because it is referring to a legislative intent here. Thank you. So moving on to page six on subsection I, the new subsection I is current law and it says that in any judicial proceeding that where one of these petitions for special findings is being made certain information about that child is protected under a law and kept confidential. So what is added to that list is the child's nationality or place of birth and currently it's refers to the child's immigration status. So that is just expanding that sort of confidentiality provision there. Subsection D of the underlying law is being struck out. Court was defined as I mentioned just as probate and family court and a new definition was added of court in subsection A. So this was struck out here. Section two of the bill is adding these very similar sort of provisions, procedure for these petitions in title 33 in the guardianship section so that it's in both title 14 and title 33. It follows a similar structure here. Subsection A is definitions and these are all the same definitions that were added to title 14. And page seven, subsection B is jurisdiction. This is just in the guardianship provision. So this is saying that the family court may retain jurisdiction over a non-citizen child who has not yet reached 21 years of age. So it's expanding that jurisdiction to someone who is 21 for the sole purpose of adjudicating a petition for special findings and making judicial determinations regarding the custody and care of that child. What is added here is that it says that nothing in this section is intended to expand the scope of the court's jurisdiction to order our youth into the custody of the commissioner of children and families. Subsection C is the procedure for making these special findings. And again, this is sort of set up to be similar to what is in title 14. So the non-citizen child may petition the court for these special findings and subdivision two says in accordance with the procedure that is set forth in title 14, the court shall review this petition and any supporting evidence to issue these findings of fact. Subsection D is a similar expeditious adjudication. So when it is consistent with the purposes set forth in section 5101 of this chapter and that's where I think the best interests of the child determinations are, the court shall hear the case and issue findings as soon as it is administratively feasible and prior to the citizen turning 21 years of age. Subsection E also has a section on additional available remedies under Vermont law and this is similar to what was in title 14 that says the child's not limited from petitioning for special findings under any other provision of law or petitioning for any other rights or remedies available to that child and subdivision two says that the court is not limited from issuing similar findings in any other proceeding concerning that non-vulnerable non-citizen child. And then finally subsection F is also adding in this title 33 section, this protection of certain information about the child in any judicial proceeding that is making these findings. So that relates to the child's immigration status, nationality or place of birth that is not otherwise protected by state laws but shall remain confidential. And it is also similar to title 14 exempting that information from public inspection under the public records act. And then finally on page nine section three is the effective date and that is July 1st, 2022. Thank you. Barbara. So Rebecca, I apologize that I missed the beginning and you may have said this. So I have a few questions. One, the need for this is do we know like why and did you already say I apologize? Why Bill was introduced? So I think other folks coming in might be able to speak better to the need to make this change, but I will, but you may have missed what I said earlier that this was something put into law a couple of years ago for this special, it's called special immigrant juvenile status, which is a status available to immigrant children under federal law, but it requires, it's sort of unique because it requires a state court order that issues certain findings before a child can petition for it. And I think the need to make these changes to the language and expand the scope of what courts can issue these findings have to do with maybe some challenges that children who are making these petitions have been facing with the law as currently drafted. Thank you. So when it says no other sort of petitions or actions, so somebody could not file to be emancipated? Sorry, which part are you? The very last part you talked about, I shall not. Title 33. Well, I'll just explain. So title 33 is where the guardianship provisions are and under Vermont law. Thank you. A child after 18 would not fall under the law. So what this section is doing is expanding the sort of jurisdiction just for the specific purpose of being able to apply for this, for this youth finding, so you can apply for this immigration status to expand a guardianship until that child or that youth is 21, so that they can still kind of meet the requirements to be able to get those special findings. And that is simply, not simply, but that is because the federal law actually allows this to happen until a child is 21, but Vermont, the way Vermont law is, the child would age out of that guardianship to not allow for it to happen. So this is kind of expanding the state law jurisdiction just for this limited purpose to be able to meet what is available under federal law. And if I'm rusty, because it's been a while since I've been on House Ed, but my understanding is for special ed, it's like up to 25. So if any of these vulnerable non-citizen youths are receiving special education, I don't know how, like if they'd be cut off at 21 and not be able to. Yeah, so my understanding, and I just have to, I would have to pull up the federal law, but I think the federal law only allows up to 21. So even if under Vermont law, there's some circumstance where someone was under care past 21, it would, for this specific purpose for making for a petition for these findings for being able to petition the government for this immigration status, it would not matter that they were, if they were older than 21. And I've got one last. So my concern and part of it is, other bills we've been doing recently, there's no language in here to encourage whoever's making the decisions to make sure that we're placing children. I mean, it talks about harm, but like in the least restrictive setting possible is what I would hate to have happened is, oh, we've got room at the women's facility. So let's put some of them there right now because we don't have foster homes or we don't have another place. So is there any protection in terms or direction to not have somebody be in a level of restricted or not even necessarily restricted, but probably restricted residential treatment event where that might not be? I don't, I think this, I don't know that I know the answer to that. I don't think so. I guess I'm hesitating because I think a child in this situation who is making these petitions might already be under a guardianship. So at that point, that decision, I think would have been made already, but I don't know the answer to if a child is coming under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court and has to be placed with a guardian, how, if that intersects at all with the child making a petition in this circumstance, but I don't know if some of the other folks coming in today would be able to answer that. Thank you. Good morning. I am, I'm acting on behalf of Martin Lalonde right now. So I'm just the messenger of this question largely. So this is subsection H, which is on page five. Construction in this section shall be liberally construed to its legislative purpose. He's wondering if we need any sort of more of an intense section there or if it's clear enough in the current bill to sort of, yeah. Yeah, I think that's a good question. I think it might be helpful because it is referring to a legislative purpose to, for the committee to consider including one so that this section is a little clearer to everybody. Can you help just me understand the purpose of H? Like what is, what is that doing? I think the intent here is to make sure that that the, a child who is making a petition in this for these findings is sort of given the ability to do so under a wider, a broader scope of situations to make sure that the child can make this petition that is not just restricted to certain situations in family or probate court. So like any time a child would come under the jurisdiction of a court, it would be available to that child. So I think if that is the purpose and I'm saying this in that this language came from others, so they might be able to better to speak to why it's necessary. But if, I think it's helpful because it's obviously raising a lot of questions about what the purpose is to maybe include some purpose language so that it clarifies what it is referring to. Martin and I, thank you. But seeing any other questions. So thank you so much. We have quite a bit of time before we start our witnesses. So why don't we adjourn now, take a break and then we will start.