 Good morning. This is Senate Judiciary on Thursday, January, February 17th, 2021, 2022. And moving right along. Today is S163, which is an act relating to state court jurisdiction for special immigrant juvenile status. Our first witness is Rebecca Wasserman from legislative council. And I'm having one of those days where I feel like we did this before. So maybe you can help us understand what we did before and what we're doing now or did the bill not pass the house or what happened to it. Thank you, Wasserman legislative council. So you are correct you did work on this two years ago. So just for some context, the special immigrant immigration, right, immigrant juvenile status is a status that is under federal law that allows immigrant immigrant children who are subject to the jurisdiction of a state juvenile court that would be the probate court or the family division who can't reunify with their parents due to abuse, abandonment or neglect to get a special order under a state court that allows them to file for a petition with the US CIS for this status to essentially stay in the country. So this, this status is unique under federal law because it requires a state court order in order first in order to file this petition. So the legislature did pass this law two years ago that allows for a the family court and the probate court to to issue these orders upon a petition and make the findings that are necessary to allow an immigrant child to file these petitions. And this bill is making some changes to what was put in law a couple years ago. Specifically, the primary change is that federal law says that children under 21 years old are eligible for this, but the way child is defined under state law here in Vermont. It really this currently only applies to folks under 18 years old. So this is expanding the jurisdiction in just this particular instance for this type of petition to the sort of 18 to 21 that is left out of the state law currently but is eligible under the federal law. Very good. Oh, that pretty much. Sorry, I had a hard time hearing that. I'm sorry is that does that please. Okay, I can I can start the walkthrough. So the, the language that was put in a couple years ago was adding a new sub chapter and title 14 under the guardianship chapter for for pro probate court. And it. This is changing the title of that chapter to refer to at risk non citizen children, and those, there's the definitions now that are included in this bill that sort of clarifies exactly who this applies to and expands that jurisdiction to the, the under 21 years old rather than just the 18 and under. And so on the bottom of page one, then going to page two was this new subsection a on with definitions for use in the sub chapter. So this, there's a new definition for at risk, which means that there is reason to suspect that the child's health safety or welfare is in jeopardy due to abuse neglect or abandonment, or similar, similar circumstances and that child can't be returned to their country of origin or their parents country of origin, because it would not be in the best interest of the child. And this is really tracking the requirements under federal law that the findings that have to be made in order for them to receive this status. Yeah. And I might just when you were describing what the bill did it seemed extremely limited just moving from 18 to under 21. But but there's a lot of underlined language here and I'm just wondering if you can characterize overall, if, if what we're doing is just changing the age why is there so much additional material. So the primary thing I was doing is expanding that that jurisdiction but it is making. I think it's clarifying to better track the federal requirements the language and federal law. So it's making some clarifications by adding in these definitions. It is, it is also adding in some additional language with respect to a child who needs the status ability to get sort of other protective services it does speak to sort of the guardianship limitations around the child so I guess I would characterize that more more than just clarifications. But I think other folks can speak to why that is necessary in practice to make these changes. Okay so it sounds like we're we're building on or expanding what we did last time. Right. Okay. So, I can move back to the definitions on page two. So as I mentioned that there's a definition added for child which, which has been changed to an unmarried individual or individuals who have not yet attained 21 years of age. Division three is a definition of court, which refers to probate or family division because these are the courts that under the federal law would meet the requirements to to issue these orders. And this was in the language originally it was just moved from the end of this section to this new definition section. So it's dependent on the court means that this individual is subject to the jurisdiction of either of these courts. Non citizen, it refers to a person who is not a US citizen. And there's also a definition of similar circumstances, which is a condition that is comparable to abuse neglect or abandonment, including the death of a child, sorry, of a parent which would make a child eligible for these findings. So subsection B is the jurisdiction of the probate and family court to issue these orders and make these findings. And if you move to page three. So this is some new language that was added. That says that an at risk non citizen child, whom charges have been filed in the criminal division may file a petition for the status in probate or family court. So this is an example of perhaps something that has happened in practice that others can speak to as to why this is being added here about if a child has had criminal charges filed against them. That seems strange. So, if the child has criminal charges against them. 17 year olds. They could file a petition to have the on their own volition to have the charges dropped to a probate or No, I think this is saying if a child who meets this definition of a at risk non citizen child has criminal charges filed against them. They can file for this special juvenile status in probate or family court. And I think this has to do with their immigration status. I think this is essentially saying if these criminal charges would be impacting their immigration status. They would, they would be able to file for this special status to stay here in one of those in family or probate court. Okay. So subsection C is the procedure for a petition. I would characterize the changes here as just maybe more mirroring what is in the federal law. So it says that if an at risk non citizen child petitions the court for special findings for this special immigrant juvenile status. The court would review that and any supporting evidence and issue of findings of fact that determine the child is one dependent on the court. Or legally committed to a place under the custody of a state agency or department that is appointed by the court. And two that the child has suffered from abuse neglect abandonment or similar circumstances. Three that the child may not be viably reunified with one or both parents due to that abuse neglect abandonment or similar circumstance circumstance pursuant to Vermont law. And the child's best interest to be returned to their country or their parents previous country of nationality. I'm having a hard time understanding this in light of going to age 20. Generally, maybe I better hear from the witnesses but I'm having a hard time understanding how the child gets into DCF custody for them as an 19 year old. So there, there is language. I'll get to a little further down that says that for these purposes. A person could either have their guardianship extended to to allow for this particular status or they could request to be under guardianship just for this particular status. So subdivision three. So this is new language here that says so on page four line 16 that the court when making these determinations will also consider the child's health safety or welfare. And that looks at whether they're present or past living conditions will adversely affect the child's physical mental or emotional health. Subdivision for online 20 sorry was there a question. Subdivision for online 20 is this extension of guardianship so at the request or consent of that child, who is presently under guardianship, the court can extend that existing guardianship of the person for award past 18 years of age. So that's one of the reasons of allowing them to complete this application so that's one example if they were already under guardianship, they could request to have that extended. And then subdivision five allows for requesting an initial guardianship. So with the consent of that child that the court may appoint a guardian for someone who is unmarried. They may not be 21 years old but not yet 21 years old in connection with making this type of petition. Subsection D is a notice requirement. So the identity or location of the child's parents are unknown or that child's parents live outside the United States. Subsection E is a notice using an alternative method of service that it deans appropriate or they may waive that service. Subsection E speaks to in order to serve the best interests of the child, a court shall adjudicate and make these issue these findings as it, as soon as it is administratively feasible. So this is a prior to that child attaining 21 years of age. Top of page six. So this is another example of some some new language that I think other witnesses may speak to the need for but the subsection F is referral for services or protection. So the court can refer when a child that is the subject of a petition for other services including psychiatric psychological educational occupational medical dental or social services. However that child's participation is voluntary in those services. Subsection G says that the section of law doesn't limit the child's ability to petition for special findings under any other provision of law or from any other rights and remedies available available to that child under the law. And it doesn't issue limit the court from issuing similar findings in any other proceeding concerning the child. Subsection H clarifies that for for the child who is 18 years or older, this extension of guardianship to them doesn't abrogate any of the rights that that child may have as an adult under state law. And subsection I is says that this section shall be liberally construed to promote the best interests of the child. On page seven, as I mentioned, there, there is currently in law on you'll see in lines 1011 a definition of court that included family and probate court. And because a new definition section was added in subsection a that was just moved to that, that new subsection and section two of the bill is an effective date so that act will take effect on July 1 of this year. I want to ask a question online 19 of page eight page six. What does liberally mean in terms of, I know what liberal means but I don't usually see this in terms of I think that it's actually, I think the, the intent here is that it will be construed in sort of the best interest in the of the child and that sort of the most flexible way to allow for these petitions to be successful. Or these, these court orders and these findings to be made. We should probably hear from judge zone a next hearing on this. I had a quick question about. Becky. At the bottom of page five. I think that is that any petition show be completed as soon as it is administratively feasible. And prior to the at risk non citizen child attaining 21 years of age. Just wondering how binding. It's a similar question to the chairs question about liberally. Is it is administratively feasible is obviously putting more pressure but is there any, is there any binding way for the applicant to invoke that. Yeah, this doesn't include like a, it shall be heard in X number of days. I think the application to be the petition to be heard quickly but what about the second part that it shall be done before they reach 21 years of age. I think it and shall I mean it is it is sort of it is mandatory there shall that it shall be heard before they are 21. Because they wouldn't be eligible if they. Yeah, I'm just wondering does. Does somebody have a right of action if, if they file their 20. And, you know, we've had a slow down in the courts for obvious reasons. Does it does it give them a right of action to sue the state if that's not done. I actually don't know the answers to that but I will, I'll do some research and get back to you on it. All right, thank you. Thank you. Other questions for Becky. Becky, thank you very much. Very helpful. And now our next witness is Rebecca Turner, who's the supervising attorney. With the office pellet division division officer defender general Rebecca welcome back. Good morning. Thank you. Thank you chair. And it is good to be back I don't think I've been before this committee this session. For the record, Rebecca Turner appellate supervisor for the office of the defender general. But as further background relevant for this bill. I'm also part of a team of attorneys in the ODG system that provides consults to criminal defense attorneys, and to parents and children attorneys. And I'll also say before I touch your pocket on immigration consequences that their clients face based on those criminal charges or having Chins proceedings initiated against the family. And even again relevant to this discussion before this. I was an immigration attorney had my own immigration practice in northern Virginia DC area where I represented adults and children and deportation proceedings, specifically worked on and represented children to help them petition for this particular status, special immigrant juvenile status. So I bring all of that here today to sort of help you. And I too had a groundhog moment preparing for this hearing, because I looked through my history of this issue and saw that it was March of 2020 right before the declaration, the emergency declaration from the governor that this we we and I believe I testified certainly reviewed and thought about it. And it was a different bill, different language. And I actually didn't realize this had passed. So I see that in section 14 now. And I appreciate this bill actually coming back before this committee. And so the, the full pullback lens, the defender general's office supports this actually does see a reason for this committee and the legislature to revisit what was done in 2020, and that crazy period of time, because they're have for for for a few reasons and some of the questions through the walkthrough through drew out those those questions why are we back here this seems very technical, bigger than than making clear jurisdiction. It includes not just the probate courts but the family courts, and to maximize children who can benefit from the status. And so let me start let me start there. As you heard the special number in juvenile status is an immigration status under federal law, Congress passed this and I forget how long ago, what's unique, or I shouldn't say unique but rare for different types of immigration is asylum right lawful permanent resident green card student visas tourist visas. What's interesting and and a little bit rare on this special number in juvenile status is Congress set it out to require sort of a two part process requiring state courts to make certain findings as to the child's best interests, the parental maltreatment abuse and neglect, the viability or lack of viability of unification with the parent. So Congress required that the state courts make key findings that is directly in their house, generally speaking, not in federal immigration law, but in the wheelhouse of our state courts that review dependency proceedings delinquency proceedings, anything where they have jurisdiction over the juvenile, where they're reviewing the best interest of state law. Congress required that the state courts make those findings. And once the state courts make those findings, they can then petition us citizen immigration service under Department of Homeland Security for this special status. What's wonderful about this status is that it's only for undocumented youth. And there are very, very, very few ways generally for undocumented people to obtain lawful status once they're here in this country, very, very few for the undocumented children. Congress recognized that weighing all the policy reasons, why that is the case, why there should be this special pathway to legal status for this particular vulnerable population of at risk undocumented youth who are often brought here without, you know, beyond their control, beyond their ability to do, and now they're an extraordinarily vulnerable situation. In our situation in the ODG system, the way that these children fall on our laps is because something has happened to bring their welfare and their safety to the attention of the state, right, so the CHIN's proceedings have been initiated. And while the state actors in the CHIN's welfare system, or the delinquency system, or the youthful offender criminal as it interacts with the family unit, as they're navigating the state law components of this, and again, focusing on the child's welfare, achieving that stability, that best interest of permanency for the child, right, they can work that hard, that long, all the parties may be in agreement, the court may be in agreement on this as to what happens. Ultimately though, the child remains undocumented, therefore vulnerable at any moment to being taken by ICE agents, put in removal proceedings, and deported, right. Now Congress didn't intend for this particular group for that to happen, carving out the legal SIJ status. Again, back to why we're here, jurisdictions around the country, state legislatures around the country have been passing, revisiting, amending, passing again, they're equivalent to S163 to sort of navigate the court findings that are required in their juvenile courts that will then be both well within their wheelhouse in terms of reviewing child welfare matters, but also qualify the child for the congressional, the federal status on SIJ. So why we're back here is that, you know, navigating those requirements, those federal special immigrant juvenile status requirements, established by statutes, as interpreted by, by federal regulations USCIS, it makes these decisions, and where, where a petition is rejected a child can appeal it. And in 2019, October, mid October 2019, so just a few months before this committee heard the last version of this that ultimately amounted to this statute being passed. So three decisions relating to the special immigrant juvenile petition was reviewed and decided by the administrative appeal unit within the Department of Homeland Security. So they're appellate administrative court controlling for purposes of the House USCIS interprets these federal guidelines. And this reviewing agency is called DAO three decisions to out of Massachusetts, reviewing Massachusetts family court decisions, making these special findings under their dependency statutes and child welfare statutes, one reviewing the Texas court finding. And the long and short of these three decisions being issued the same day, made it clear that we had to state the legislature's if they wanted to, to provide this pathway for certain children, had to make it clear that this wasn't being done for the purpose of applying for a special immigrant juvenile status that this wasn't just being done these findings, just for the purposes of satisfying the federal statute. Right. Instead, it has to beat the purpose underlying purposes to address the child's interest in maltreatment underlying right citing relevant state law citing the factual basis that the parties bring for as to why this has to happen. So I see the proposed changes in s 163 is trying to get to those issues. That said, this, this overview was supposed to stay general, but I think you're getting a flavor of how highly technical and complicated the status is as an immigration attorney and was a headache. And I have a pile of alerts and decisions and other state legislation on this that I'm on leading through, and have suggestions and ideas on how to make this current proposal better. And, and ensure that I think the intent is to make clear that state courts can do this, that it is indeed inconsistent with a jurisdiction of, of overseeing the welfare of the child and best interests, then I think we should work on the current legislation and make it clear so that, so that the ultimate intent and motive, which is to assist these children and need aren't actually thwarted that the courts do this, and then it ultimately isn't accepted at the federal level. I'll stop there. See if there are any questions. It might be helpful to me if I had an example of a child and how the current system works and how it would work with the passage of this bill with some changes that you may be recommending. And I urge you to work with Rebecca Wasserman on those changes. I'm happy. I'm happy to do it. You know, one of the one case example that's helpful. And I forgot to mention this, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed this very question. It was not a case coming out of the ODG system, but we were consulted during the argument phase of it and ultimately the question before the Vermont Supreme Court was this, the, the, it was the family division and Addison unit was asked to make special findings for an undocumented youth at risk of deportation, otherwise within the jurisdiction of this family unit and Addison County. And, and I'm just trying to see why it wasn't a chance at was something else. And perhaps the VLS witness can talk about it because I understand they were representing this child, but the case name is Katoko V Saloma. And the, for the record, I'll give this site 2019 VT 45 that came out in June 25 2019. The question there was whether the, the lower court judge, the family court judge had the authority to make these findings. And then it was revealed that, that the parties were trying to get this child ready set up to apply for the special juvenile status before the child aged out. Again, aging out for purposes of qualifying for this federal status is 21, which is why you're seeing this, this strange extension language and going beyond the normal chins courts jurisdiction of up to 18. Right. So the judge questioned whether he had the authority to so do. And so the Supreme Court issued this decision, saying yes you do, because this is squarely within your authority as as a judge considering the child welfare interest of the child to to consider in terms of whether this makes sense. And so reversed it send it back down for the judge to do. So there is that I am. I can give you more examples. The other I think I can give you more anecdotally what we see come up in our system. Does that help. Yeah. Okay, right. So, 17 and a half year old in a chin's case. And their DCF files, you know, cases proceeding reunification with the parents is deemed unlikely unreasonable based on the child's need for permanency. And so all of the efforts have, have been made to try to get the parents on board for whatever reason, didn't happen. One of the parents is non citizen, actually both parents are non citizens. So is the child. No one has lawful status. In fact, one of the parents isn't even in the picture, because in the middle of this process, I identified the person and arrested them and deported them. DCF was granted custody of the undocumented child. The child is placed in foster family. ODG attorney represents the child. So, and the child supports termination parental rights. And the foster family has, has an interest in continuing to take care of the child, but can't quite commit to adoption yet. And, and again, we're having a 17 and a half year old who's undocumented is about to age out of the system without support as well. Right now, everyone has an interest to invest interest in this child. They know though that the second that this child ages out that that the court's authority or jurisdiction DCF jurisdiction over this child will disappear. And no adoption happens and this child still hasn't documented status. Right. And so, you know, matter the best intentions of setting this child up for schooling for whatever kind of resources are out there. She will always remain vulnerable to being just deported. Now, in the meantime, this child has a siblings who may be US citizens from from maybe there's there's a there was a pathway for her younger siblings to have gotten us citizenship but not her because she was older. Her, her siblings were born here. So they're automatic citizens. So, these sort of situations arise where there are lots of reasons why, why, why DCF why, why, why, why there's a there's a collective interest, generally to have this child stay in Vermont. My family ties, no other ties anywhere else, whether she's from Mexico, or, you know, any other country, there's just no other ties. And the question is, well, let's choose otherwise eligible for the special and juvenile status that gets are not only the status but an eventual pathway to a green card a lawful permanent resident card, which is a wonderful status to have as a non citizen because it's permanent and stable and also opens up doors for being eligible for certain federal benefits. And so, again, a wonderful thing you want to set up for a child who was aging out of the DCF system. So everyone is on board and the state court doesn't quite know what to do whether the state court family court has jurisdiction to make these findings it's not quite, you know, it's everyone understands this is federal immigration so there are questions about that. The Vermont Supreme Court has now made clear that of course these family courts can do this, this statute or this bill provides the courts with more specific guidance that will ensure that that the necessary dots are and the T's across the eyes are dotted correctly to match what's actually needed in the federal system so that's why the state legislators do this to sort of provide that assistance road map to the state courts to parties to help to help protect these children to ensure that actually the intent is is there and get them going to get that petition filed and hopefully approved. Great. Questions for Rebecca. Thank you so much, Senator betting. Rebecca, the looping in a probate court, you know what's going on there I don't practice in this area I'm just trying to get a handle on why they're being brought in. I guess I think, I think and I also, I'm not in the probate courts but I think that what it is is maximizing. I think it's a good opportunity for communities for children who so qualify to get these kinds of findings done before courts that have jurisdiction over juveniles. Right. So the guardianships again courts that would be making custody decisions and guardianship decisions so that brings in the big courts there. Maybe someone from DCF can better spell out that one of the concerns I have here the earlier bill. You know and again I don't know how much you want me to to go through the specific concerns I have with this could be helpful if you and Rebecca could come up with alternative language here. We've got two weeks to crossover. And so if you and Rebecca could come up with language that improves the bill. That would be helpful to present to the committee next week or the week after. I'll do that. And, and that works. This question. Joe, Joe, are you did you get answers. I'm just wondering, initially when I looked at this bill and I was thinking of young people, you know, in the mass of mass of people coming across the from Mexico I was thinking of those children, but I'm thinking about a little more I'm thinking about the migrant farm workers who came over on their own under 21 got here and are here working. And so this would sounds like this would be another route for them to get into the system to get citizenship is that correct. Yes. I think that is correct. That's fair. I think one of the things that that should be stressed is this is not an easy status to obtain. And there are lots of challenges to getting into this is just one, one of the challenges getting the rate, the court to to make these findings whether the findings are adequate but there are lots of reasons why it is difficult to get but it certainly is available to people that you identified. And is incredibly useful for this certain group. Again, a pilot high at risk youth who have lost one or both family members through abandonment neglect abuse to let them and have a chance of getting legal status and starting fresh. This is where I get confused when we talk about abuse and abandonment. My understanding was the abandonment occurs because ice takes the parent and supports them. So it's really not abandoned. I mean, they didn't have much. The parent didn't have much choice when I think about abandonment I think of the parent who just, you know, gives up and doesn't want to deal with the child anymore. You know, I'm not sure that's the proper term they've been left on their own because of circumstances beyond their control they were brought over here from, let's say Honduras. And they weren't adopted by a Vermont family so they don't have. Once the adoption occurs and they have us citizenship is that correct. I can remember dealing with a kid from Honduras who had been adopted by a Vermont family who was then got into trouble and ended up in my program but he, and he's doing quite well now by the way. But he, he, he came over from Honduras as an adoptee. So he wouldn't come under this because once he's adopted he's a US citizen. Am I correct? You, you are, you are correct that adoption by US parents gives a path, a quick path to send citizenship and that's wonderful. And your point on abandonment and, and, and being sort of ironic. Right. And what that means is, is, is fair enough. And I'll only add this and I'll let you hear from the other witnesses. These, these terms like abandonment, I gave you one example but that is a very narrow definition. It shouldn't be confused as, as encapsulating the entirety or scope of these terms it's, it's, it, it, and I'll leave it at that again I'm happy to go through more of the specific. I think I'm understanding what we're dealing with here. All right. Other questions for Rebecca Rebecca thanks so much for being with us on this you're extremely helpful. We look forward to seeing you next week. So we are actually the week after town meeting when we try to finalize this bill before crossing. Our next witness is Jill Rudge. Who's with the Vermont law school. Thank you chair yes I am Jill Rudge I am an assistant professor and senior staff attorney at the immigration project of the South Royalton legal clinic at Vermont law school. It's a pleasure to be here with you all thank you for the opportunity. And, you know, for I'll, I'll try not to repeat some of the excellent information that attorney Turner has already shared with you all, and just seek to build on it and then to maybe offer some examples from my own case load that speak to some of the questions that have come up in conversation. So, you know, to contextualize the experience I bring I was an immigration defense attorney in New York City. I had an SIJ practice where I was litigating these special findings motions in state courts in the New York City boroughs. And then with those orders was petitioning on behalf of non citizen youth for special immigrant juvenile status from the federal government. Since I have come to Vermont, I was practicing generals practice at Vermont legal aid and then joined the law school clinic and returning to immigration so the timing is such that I was not with the clinic at the time that I was litigated and decided. So I can offer some, if there's more questions about that case that was before the Vermont Supreme Court I can speak a little bit to the procedural history but I won't be as well versed as my predecessor and colleague Aaron Jacobson, who is now at the community justice project of the Attorney General's office, but I do have some active cases I'd be happy to share some examples of what this looks like day to day. Because Vermont is such a small state, I'm going to take great pains to try and anonymize some of the details. Because this isn't, you know, since the 2020 bill passed and clarified Vermont courts jurisdiction to issue these findings. There hasn't been an avalanche of demand, even with the arrival of many, many folks at the southern border and Vermont being such a welcoming community, it's not we're not being overwhelmed with requests for representation on these matters, but we have cases, and the cases that we've been able to offer wrap on have been truly transformative for both the immigrant youth, and for their families and caregivers who are able to access these immigration benefits. So I think it might be helpful if I begin with an example of a family court case for a young person who has experienced abuse, abandonment and neglect by one of their parents. One was their parent had fled domestic violence in their country of origin, by the other parent, and left my client in the care of grandparents that young person as soon as they were able to come and follow to join, they did. And they're now in Vermont reunited with their parent and they're both in a safe posture but they're both undocumented. And because my client was had contact with immigration authorities at the border crossing, my client is now in removal proceedings. So she's an imminent risk of deportation back to her country of origin, where her grandparents are now too old to care for her and to protect her from the abusive parent, the other parent. So in order to, so there's two things going on right my client has immediate needs her health needs her schooling needs her safety needs. She needs to invoke a defense against her removal to be able to stay in here in Vermont where she has a caregiver and has access to all of her basic needs for her well being and safety. And her parent with whom she is living is an undocumented person who has a real fear of facing adverse legal immigration consequences for helping her child kind of navigate the legal system and the school system and the hospital system. And so that my client's parent has petitioned for an order regarding her parental rights and responsibilities before the family division. And the purpose is to give my client's mother a document that really clarifies that she is the person who can safely and confidently support my client to access all of the systems that are designed to promote my client's health and well being and safety and healing from what she experienced. And my client also, while that matter is being litigated the parental rights and responsibilities is now in the position to submit a motion for special findings. And while that proceeding is happening now the family court judge has clear jurisdiction to make such findings according to the language of this bill. And so that my client can apply for special immigrant juvenile status and invoke that as a defense against her removal and immigration court to offer an example from a probate division case. So I am representing a teenager who a teenager who for reasons related to abuse abandonment neglect is not able to reunite with either parent. That person came to Vermont flood to safety in Vermont, where they have relatives distant relatives. And that person is also a teenager so they're getting close to the 18 mark, and they are also in removal proceedings because they were detected as they were crossing the border for safety from Latin America. And that person similarly needs support with engaging in school and health care and all the systems that Vermont has set up to help ensure that our youth are healthy and are supported in achieving their well being, but because my client does not have a parent in the community to initiate a parentage action, requesting an order regarding rights and responsibilities. Instead, that person has a my client has identified an adult who is able and willing to be a guardian and a support for my client and helping support her into her new life in Vermont. So that person has petition for guardianship over my client. And while that matter is being litigated regarding, you know what the scope of the guardianship should be to promote the health and well being and safety of my client my client can make a motion for legal findings. And even if given you know the the slowdowns in the courts that the committee is referenced caused by COVID, even if my client is to turn 18, while the courts are backed up, she won't be precluded from having equal and equitable access to enjoying her full rights afforded by the federal statute by INA 101 a 27 J. And so, you know, there are two examples there are many others, but I'll pause there in case there are any questions about those examples. I have a very helpful me are there questions about those examples. So as these kids approached 18, they would then under Vermont law current law not be eligible. And basically the problem so this bill would make them eligible, but continued guardianship, but they'd still, if they became us citizens they'd still have all the rights of an 18 year old, the vote to absolutely and whatever that's right chair and you know and other rates that are really important to youth who are restabilizing and resettling their lives right so a person who has limited English proficiency, who has experienced trauma in their background and maybe hasn't had as much adult support in their life. And even if they're over 18 they might still be in a position where they're attending high school and they need assistance with getting a driver's license and having employment authorization so they can work to support themselves. If they ever wanted to pursue higher education then they need a social security number in order to request student loans. And even after they achieve that higher education, a person might need a social security number and status to obtain the necessary licensure to practice their trade. You have these pathways I always like to say that these immigration statuses are really just keys that unlock the doors to everything else that a person needs, including access to the social safety at a person is not eligible for most state or federal states without that pathway to permanency. And exactly as you said chair this the bill is proposed the main thrust of it, as I understand it which is why my clinic fully supports the bill is to just close the justice gap for the small group of 18 to 21, who otherwise under the federal statute would have access to permanency. And this would be in keeping with similar legislation that has been passed by nearby neighboring states, Maine Massachusetts in New York. Thank you. Other questions for Jill. Any further comments Jill. No, I just thank you all for the opportunity and attorney Turner I would I would love to connect with you offline about some of the, your concerns I'd love to hear about them. Our next witness and I will land back is here and I want to make sure right. I have listed. Martina Kenendo. I probably messed that up. But if she here or are you representing her. Yeah, thank you, Senator Sears. Unfortunately, Marita had to log off she had. Oh, I'm sorry. Not a problem so I ought to fill in for her and I'll be very brief. Marita had more remarks prepared but migrant justice supports this bill. We we second everything that you heard from from Jill just now and have collaborated on a number of cases and yeah the types of experiences that you heard Jill speak about with her clients is something that is unfortunately common for for many immigrants in the state, particularly young immigrants, working in or part of the dairy farm working community, which have connections with my injustice so this is a bill that is sort of a, in some ways, a technical fix that can be in the weeds but as you've heard would have a really tremendous and positive impact for for a number of your constituents and we hope that this is something that the legislature can act on. Thank you. And are there any questions for will you have any idea how many kids there might be in this situation. In Vermont. I would hesitate to give a number because it would be very broad. But Jill, do you do you have any sense on has your office tried to do an estimate. I'm in the same boat as you will I think that you know I could speak to my own caseload and say that it is a growing part of our caseload, but not the main the majority of the highest proportion of cases that we do are asylum cases. So, yeah, but I will say again, you know and it's hard because as an immigration practitioner I can only do so many cases. So I have to kind of let go a little bit of the numbers because it's a lot of work each individual case but what I will say is I have observed how completely transformative, even having one household member have access a pathway to permanency, how it can transform and stabilize and increase safety for all of the household members. Thank you. Committee any. Thank you all very much all three of you. And for Becca Wasserman could come back on. She's here. Oh, Becky, thank you. I hopefully you and Rebecca Turner can work on some new language or updating the bill. Um, try, besides judge zone. Who else should we hear from you have any thoughts. Um, I think that the folks that I would have suggested we're here today. And so I don't, I don't have any other thoughts on who else, but I can maybe talk to a few people and see if I can get some suggestions and let let Peggy know and we'll try to schedule this next week. It's on the agenda for Wednesday at 1030. Okay. Cool. Yes, Senator Nick. It's not totally clear to me. I mean guardianship is one thing that's different. I mean, care and custody of the state of Vermont's different than just straight guardianship. What I'm wondering, I certainly want to hear from the commissioner of DCF, because are some of the point, the point is 18 to 21 year olds. I think they might be moving into the custody of DCF and could go to a foster home or, you know, get all the services that they have and I'm not clear how that all would work. Yeah. Yeah, because generally we make kids. Unless it's a delinquency case under the raise the age, anybody that's 18 is mainly voluntary staying in the system and I think they can stay up till age 21 if they're involved in school or something of that nature. But it's a voluntary thing. Yes. Thank you. That's a great question. So I think, you know, the two examples I, if I'm understanding the question correctly, the two examples that I gave for my case load are, you know, an example of a straightforward. Someone finds themselves a child under 21 finds themselves subject of proceedings and family court and while they're there, there is clear jurisdiction for them to make a motion for special findings, similar to a young person who finds themselves subject of a proceeding in probate court, and now has that there's clear jurisdiction for the court to hear a motion on special findings there. So I think with respect, and I would, it would be great to hear from the Commissioner of DCF on this as well. With respect to the other reasons that a person, a young person might find themselves subject to a proceeding in juvenile court might include a chance proceeding or might include even a criminal proceeding. And the, the, the purpose or the effect of one making a motion for special findings, as you know, in the course of that proceeding doesn't have an effect on the overall resolution of that proceeding. That is kind of a separate question there's this narrow sub question of whether, given the fact that this youth is a dependent on a juvenile court, the court is in the position to issue those special findings that the youth would need to then go seek immigration process, because even if a person a young person is put into the care of the foster system, they, if they are removable as charged, they'll still have to appear before the immigration court in their removal proceedings, and either raise a defense or face removal. When did that get at the question Senator. Mine. Yeah. Also, I think it was a good suggestion Senator Nick that we hear from DCF, maybe not the Commissioner but somebody who's dealing in the office and might deal with these cases. Maybe an attorney for DCF to. Right now we have DCF coming on Wednesday. Good. So, we would add to that. Okay. So, I think we have to run to a special session of the legislature to elect. We don't have to run that's only five past 10. I guess we'll give ourselves extra time.