 Thank you. Thank you. Our next witness is Sarah Robinson from the Vermont network against violence. Good morning. Thank you so much for having me for the record. Sarah Robinson, deputy director at the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. Thank you very much for taking testimony on S 99 this morning and for the thoughtful conversation that you all have been having with the previous witnesses this morning. The network supports S 99. And we believe that this build on the important statutes of limitations reform that the legislature enacted several years ago when you all repealed the civil statute of limitations on child sexual abuse claims. And these previous claims have been really immensely helpful for victims and extending these reforms to victims of child sexual abuse. And we believe that this physical abuse will provide just one mechanism for victims to be able to seek justice when they've experienced severe child abuse by an individual or an institution entrusted with their care. And from our perspective, you know, certainly compared with the criminal processes, civil actions have the potential to provide even more child sexual abuse. And while criminal justice processes are designed to focus on individual culpability related often to specific acts. Civil actions can provide a mechanism for broader accountability and for reform. And I think you heard that earlier from the two witnesses that spoke. And importantly, so these civil actions can provide an opportunity to seek justice and not only from individuals that cost harm, but also institutions that were entrusted with keeping children safe. And in this way, we think that civil actions have an important role to play in the prevention of further or future child abuse. And this particular proposal that you're looking at today will really provide these kinds of opportunities for victims of child abuse whose lives have been irrevocably altered by their experience of abuse. And these victims can include child victims of severe household domestic violence and victims of child abuse experienced in an institutional setting. And I know you've heard several examples already of that. The current three year statute of limitations related to these particular civil actions really sets forth a timeline that has no relation to the dynamics of the sort of abuse or challenges that victims face in coming forward. For many individuals, it can take years to really fully understand the scope and impact of abuse that they experienced in childhood. And even once that is realized, it can take even longer to navigate the complicated process of taking action to seek various paths of justice against those that were entrusted with keeping them safe. And so lifting these limits really expands victims' ability to seek healing on a timeline that is more reasonable and is, frankly, more evidence-based when we look at the way, the amount of time that it does take for many victims to come forward and disclose. And I just wanted to note two additional items that had come up previously in discussion this morning. One was something that Senator Baruth brought up. And I would just offer that one additional item for potential consideration by the committee is whether Vermont statutes regarding access to records by victims after they reach adulthood, whether any of those statutes need to be strengthened. And in many cases of abuse, victims seek to really make sense of their memories and experiences by seeking available documentation about their care. And I know that in the case of the St. Joe's survivors and many others that I've spoken with, access to records has posed a significant barrier to healing for victims in the past. And so that may be an area for additional consideration. I don't have any particular language recommendations today, but if the committee was interested in pursuing that line of inquiry, I'd certainly be willing to be part of those conversations. And then the last is just in regards to child abuse and what we are seeing today, one of the things that the network does is house the program that trains nurses to provide those specialized exams to victims of domestic and sexual violence. And that also includes providing exams to pediatric patients. And so those might be pediatric victims of child sexual abuse or child physical abuse. And I did want to note that in 2020, 318 adults and 67 children in Vermont saw those specialized exams. And that's just a subset of the total that are seeking medical care for suspected, you know, adult or child abuse. And that was almost twice as many as the cases that we saw in 2019. And I just share that by way of saying that it was a really surprising, it was really surprising for us because overall healthcare utilization was down in 2020. But what we saw was almost twice as many people seeking specialized care for exams related to abuse that they experienced. So I think that this proposal is timely and we support it. Thank you, Sarah. Are there questions for Sarah? I guess one question is frequently in domestic violence cases. We hear of where children were taken into the doctor's office and examined and sometimes it's questionable whether it was the broken arm as a result of abuse or that fall down the stairs. Is that the type of case you're talking about where the records are not available? I don't understand the record. Yep. So I think it would be those records. It could also be records related to children that are in states custody or in a placement in some kind of placement that they're unable to access those records could also be related to adoption records. And Amy Brady from Voices may be able to speak to this in greater depth. But I know that many people who experience abuse and then are placed in a different household and permanently placed with another family often have a really difficult time in going back and seeking any records related to their adoption after they are adults. And so that may be one additional area for consideration. Yeah. Well, I was a subject of the notice stated options. You can just guess how difficult it is to uncover any information from messages. Of course I'm not only the records are difficult, but I was talking more about those types of allegations of child's physical abuse. You know, because of the intimidation, I'm not going to say that he fell down. The father's obviously the doctor can't prove that those records are there somewhere. And maybe years later that he relives those. I think that's exactly it. And so there may be. Sorry, I'm getting an echo. There may be, you know, medical records. There may be educational records or various institutional records. That could be really helpful to adult victims as they're trying to make sense of their experience. All right. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mary Kehoe, an attorney with the Kehoe law firm. Mary, welcome, Senate judiciary. Morning. Thank you for having me. Yeah. Where would you like to start, Senator Sears? Well, you're interested in this bill. Okay. Thank you. I have recently. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And people that you represent how it would help. Okay. Well, I don't actually represent anyone. I've been assisting individuals who are survivors of St. Joe's on sort of an ad hoc basis. Working with Mark Wenberg and. Victims. And can you hear me? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So in talking with them and looking at the bill that Senator Pearson's introduced. You know, the concern is how do some of these people obtain redress for the harms that they experienced as children. And I know that Senator. Pearson is interested in this as well. And it just simply occurred to me. That one. Way of looking at this in terms of waiving the statute of limitations. Without opening. The floodgates, so to speak, would be to take a look at the standards that are in Vermont's relief from abuse statutes. As they relate to children. Most of my career was focused on helping domestic partners. Not so much children. But I do know that in order to obtain a relief from abuse order. To protect a child. One can do so if one can establish. That the harm to the child is so severe. That it impacts their emotional development. So I would encourage the Judiciary Committee. And considering Senator Pearson's bill. To take a look at that statute. To see if that is a standard. That the committee could, so to speak, wrap its arms around and considering waiving. The statute of limitations for people who experienced that. Kind of harm as children, they would have to establish the harm. And I don't think it's very easy. You would have to have someone, probably an expert. To establish that the person now at an adult. Experienced that level of harm as a child. It's worth considering. I haven't delved into it in great detail. And please let me assure you, I'm no expert at that. I know that you have other witnesses. I see Jerry O'Neill's name here as a witness. Who are have far more expertise than I do. But I just think it's one area that you could look because honestly, I know that Senator Pearson is concerned about opening the flood gates. But honestly, when I took a look at his bill. His proposed bill. It occurred to me that there are precious few people that that bill would really. At least those that I've been in contact with who are survivors of their occupancy at St. Joe's many, many years ago. Few of them experienced. Aggravated assault, but many of them experienced severe emotional trauma. Based on the way they were handled as children. So I would encourage the committee to take a look at title 33. Have ledged councillors. Take a look at that. And see if that covers. I think we could. Sorry. Go ahead. That's the sort of thing that. Well, here's my problem. Not even supposed to be taking up Senate bills right now. And because of the timeliness of this bill. I'm taking it up. We were to expand further. To the. The title 33. Relief. So I would encourage the committee to take a look at title 33. Have ledged council take a look at that and see if that covers. I think we could. Take a look at the title 33. Relief and abuse standards. I don't think we can do that this year. I think that's something that. We would need to look at. Right now. I'm just. I think. That does complicate the issue. Trying to do that night. Senator Pearson's. You know, I'm trying to. Because it seems timely to me and important. Yes. We deal with this. But getting into those types of standards. We need to. So look for, I don't think any state has gone that. Well, I'm aware of. Oh, I also think you'd have to have. Other parameters in order to avoid. In my, this is just my opinion as a citizen. To avoid. Casting too large a net. With this bill, one thought I had. And again, these are just my thoughts in speaking with these individuals who. As I'm sure you all know. You know, I have suffered some severe harm. It's hard not to feel very compassionate about them. But one thought I had is that you could limit the waiver of the statute to institutions. Right. Because institutions. Have, I think. A greater responsibility to all of us. When you're entrusting a child in their care. And they hold themselves out. As a facility that has the capacity to provide that care. I think it would be. Different when it's in a strictly private context within, for example, the scope of a family. So I would be in favor of taking a look at whether it would be. Wise to limit the scope of the waiver of the statute to. Institutions who hold themselves out as having expertise. And honestly get paid, right? Get paid or get some sort of compensation for what they do. I think they should be held to a higher standard. Next week we hope to hear from some of the survivors. Some of this time, and that may help make our judgments is about where to go. Inform us. As working with the survivors, what have you discovered that you didn't expect? Well, I know that Mr. O'Neill probably knows a lot more about this. And I do. I. Here's what I have discovered just personally that it's. With highly concerning issue. When I first got involved with these folks. As anyone I took a look at the materials they sent me. And the first thing I thought is, oh boy, this is going to take me a lot of time. And I started watching and I couldn't break myself away. From what they wrote, what they said, what, you know, songs they composed, poems they written. They've written about the experiences they had. I read the article by the. Journalists whose name I cannot recall, but I think she's from Australia. She's from Australia. She's from Australia. She's from Australia. I couldn't tear myself away. What happened to these people is honestly horrific. And they are now feeling it more now than. When they were children, of course, because they don't have a voice when they're children. I mean, it's, it's really hard not to feel extraordinarily hurtful. I mean, it's hard not to take action as I'm doing pro bono. I'm just doing this as a citizen who has. Time on her hands. It's hard not to want to take action to provide these people some relief. They're hurting. I, I really do hope you have a chance to. I know you're so, so busy, but to lay out the time to listen to these folks and what they have to say. You know, I, I feel comfortable in saying that I assure you, you will all react the way I did and speaking with them and reading what they had to say. And I hope you can find the time, not necessarily this year. I'm sure that will require some work. I see Mr. Fitzpatrick's name on the screen here and ledge council would have to really study this. I mean, obviously you all have to seriously consider the consequences of the actions you take. But I think this is one. Senator Sears that really deserves that time and effort. If not this year, then next year, I would certainly be happy to help in any way I can. There's been discussions between the Senate, Judiciary Committee, and Senate Education. About next steps, and that's mainly regarding the current hat and situation. Similar. We have both charges of sexual abuse and physical abuse. And whether how that moves in the, and what we do, whether it's go through the child protection committee that legislative joint. We're going to continue to look at these issues in these institutions, specifically those two. And their impact on kids in Vermont and survivors. Those. But. This bill. Is specifically one thing that. We think we could do to bring some relief. Some kids. No longer kids. Some children. Physically abused in those situations. Obviously. Because Vermont. I think was. Me proactive in this community. Some of that. On the child section. And I don't know what the impact has been of that. Whether there have been a lot of cases filed or haven't. Now we're looking at this. Child physical abuse that occurred in some of these. When it gets to the emotional trauma. It's harder to. That's what that. Again, there's where I would say that. That. Whatever we end up. With. With. I don't know what the impact has been of that. Years ago. Whether there have been a lot of cases filed or haven't. Now we're looking at this. Child physical abuse that occurred in some of these. When it gets to the emotional trauma. It's harder to. You know, Whatever we end up with. The three committees in the Senate. Looking at. Issues. Certainly. Yeah. Similar. You're really similar. Yep. Well. The. We look forward to hearing from some of those folks next week. And. You know, what's happened to them. Yeah. Well, thanks for the opportunity. And I'm grateful that you're taking a look at this and doing what you can. To address these issues for. Yeah. There's also. I should mention that in the attorney general asked for, I think a little over $25,000. Which is in. For the survivors. Yeah. Help with the wellness program. For those survivors. It's in the H3 third. Three 15 much. The Senate's past. House. Hasn't yet agreed with our. I don't think it's over that. I don't know where that. Well, thank you. Welcome. Amy's good to see you here. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. For the record, my name is Amy. And I'm a policy associate with voices for Vermont's children. I applaud the work that this committee and others have done to remove the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. And support broadening the scope of that statute to include physical abuse through S 99. My intent is to keep my testimony brief. In addition to my testimony, I have sent the committee. Rosemary. Puma's publication entitled decategorizing child abuse. Equally devastating acts require equally solicitous statutes of limitation. Rosemary outlines other state statutes. Names and equities that exist within those statutes. Names and equities that exist within those statutes. Explains the individual and community impact of childhood trauma. Counters the common opposition to statute of limitation changes. And speaks to the necessity of developing for you. It is my understanding that this bill was drafted in response to a request from St. Joseph's restorative inquiry. I would be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to thank them for bringing this issue forward and to extend that gratitude to all of our sponsors as well as this committee for listening to them. We know that trauma leaves people vulnerable and can often strip them of power and voice. Centering survivors and restructuring our systems redistributes power and has the potential to heal past wrongs while creating meaningful and visionary changes to our current structure. In addition to repealing the statute of limitations, voices for Vermont's children recommends looking into the current situation. We can not undo past harm. We can create the context for healing. When we allow the people who have abused others to continue to hold the stories of those they have harmed, we are getting in the way of the truth and reconciliation process. In conclusion, voices for Vermont's children fully supports S 99 and looks forward to working with this committee and others to address proactive measures to prevent abuse. We also support removing barriers to healing, especially those that have been unearthed by survivors all around the state. Thank you. Thank you. I briefly glance that the committee has put on, we have posted to the committee website. Are there particular areas that you, I mean, it's 140 pages, I think. It is. Just six or seven. And so I can highlight those and send that back. I think that she just did a really good job of kind of going through why this matters. I think it's really important to think about what has happened when they changed statutes. There's an example of Oregon in particular with a case study. And why, why this matters for kids long term as they grow up. And she speaks a lot about ACEs, which I know that the legislature has heard about for a number of years, but sort of the financial and. Lifelong impacts of trauma and how civil removal of statute of limitations can help. To at least compensate folks for, for the extra expenses that they've had to endure. They've experienced. Are there any comments regarding access to records that you could help me with? Thank you. I did hear that question. For Sarah as well. And I think, you know, for the most part, from my understanding is that medical records are fairly easy to access if people know the providers to go to. What I've heard more and more is that. Youth who transition out of state care, particularly those who don't have a permanency plan, who. Transition and independence without. A family to connect with. Often have a really hard time accessing their records. After their time in state care. And they do not even know the providers. To seek their records from. Because they don't have access to their full story. I also saw the list of. Hopes and aspirations that. The folks from St. Joe's put together. And I noted that on their list, they also asked for their own individual records. And I think that they've been working on that for some time. And still haven't been able to. Get them. It just feels like, you know, it's a common theme. Whether it's somebody who's been in state custody. Or somebody who's been an institution. Where they know where the records are kept. They've gone through. You know, do process trying to. Get access to them and have been denied. Other questions from Amy. Senator Bruce. Yeah. Quick, quick follow up. Can you specify a little, what, what is the basis under which they're denominated? So I believe, and you know, we would have to ask. I think the state probably more about this, but I believe that. Youth have transitioned out of state care in particular. Have access to specific parts of their file. They need to be redacted. I think sometimes those files are hard to locate. I think sometimes. There's been barriers. To doing that. And I don't know if it's because. The redaction process takes staff time or. I really don't know, honestly, but what I do know is that there are many youth who have repeatedly and writing and, and. You know, gone through the complaint process, trying to access the records and have not been able to do so. I think that they're supposed to be able to see them in the office and then request specific sections. To take home with them. And even the. Even seeing their educational and their medical records within the office hasn't been granted in many cases. Seems so odd to me because I usually associate redaction with national security. In this case, given that they're the individual. To whom the record pertains. I think it's hard to see the justification for. Redacting. Their own record. The reason behind that is because oftentimes a child's file includes health records of their family. And so while it's their own record, there's often information in their file that pertains to other people that they might not have access to. They might not have access to the records or sometimes so old. It may not have redacted everything they have thought they were going to. Or they may have over redacted. I don't know if I was. To find out my. My name was Stephen. Actually, my first name was. When I was born. Could have been different. You know. I don't know if I was supposed to find. Anyway, those are the types of things that are in records that. You just can't access. I don't know if Senator whites committee has. Usually does records. And that's assuming that kids were in states. Many of the kids at St. Joseph's. That is true. And I think you'll, if you ask them next week, I think you'll hear that they're having equally difficult time getting access to their files. And. In just her, I don't know. We don't deal with. Individual records, but with public records requests. In terms of somebody else requesting a record. I don't know. But individuals records are usually available to the individual. With, as Amy pointed out. The red action necessary to protect other people. Okay. Any other questions for Amy. Committee. Zoom through this. Zoom. No. We, we are at a schedule. So Eric, maybe we could talk a little bit about. Further. Are there other questions that committee wants to. Ask to look at. As we continue to work on. I just ask Eric question. I'm just thinking about cases whereby. Someone is. Emotionally unstable later in life. And they did go through. Home or they're in their own home, for instance, even. And they were. Not really severely abused by the parents, but say emotional abuse. Does that come under here too. That later on. They are experiencing problems and. Maintain that they were emotionally abused in their. Home. Are those cases, would they also come under here? The way it's written now would not apply to just emotional abuse. No. Okay. It's just. There has to be some physical injury. Right. I'm also thinking of some other cases whereby. In times past. Substantiated abuse might have been if. Apparent. I can think of one case where by. Apparent slapped their child across the face because they were swearing at them. And when the, in doing so, it must have hit them hard enough that it. It left a mark on their face. And so that case was substantiated. And so say that. The child went on in life and said, you know, I was an emotional problem. I'm still suffering. Because of this kind of thing for my parents. And that piece. About the slap in the face couldn't be substantiated. Because that might be in a record because it was founded. So are those the kind of. I mean, I suppose you could try anything, but. But would that be considered aggravated assault? Because there was no intent. Cause serious bodily harm or. I don't know, Eric. I would say not. It's, I agree. Senator white that. It probably would not. Come under the definition of aggravated assault because. It would not. Seem to be. It wouldn't cause serious bodily injury. And. Was not conduct that was. Manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. So. A slap in a. Parental context doesn't, doesn't seem to me to rise to that standard. It would be assault, but not aggravated assault. Correct. Yeah. But. It may not even be assault. I mean, I. One of the charges in current hat is that the kids were. Required to stand. For long periods of time. That may also been at St. Joseph. We're required to stand at long periods of time. Stand in place. Would that be. Which. Causes. Causes. Causes. It may not even be assault. One of the charges in current hat. Is that the kids were required to stand. For long periods of time. Which. Causes. Causes. Causes. That. That sort of thing. I would seem like a difficult. Case to make her. Or to meet that standard. But then the kids. The cross. Who. Knees buckled. Would be. That's potential. Yup. That could be serious pottery entry. You know, kicking someone to the floor. Does that show extreme indifference to the value of human life? Is that. Or. Reckless conduct that. Someone might. Arguably know could. Cost someone to inadvertently die. You know, again, not an easy case to make, but you know, the more severe the. Arm. The more at least possible, it seems like. A claim could be made out. Thank you. Eric. Where we go. The only thing I had forgotten to mention, and just to, again, it's a. A legal point that the committee had talked about in the. Context of the. Childhood sexual abuse statute as well. It is just a. And you know, the mayor may not. There was a lot of testimony. About this two years ago, it may not come up again now, but there is this sort of outstanding constitutional question about. Reviving claims that have been expired. Still hasn't been resolved. I think the cases I've seen. There are cases on both sides. It seems like the majority of cases say it's okay. But there are a few that say. It causes due process problems. Just. As we always. Yeah. So the idea is that. Once. The. Statute of limitations has run. That someone gains a vested right. And not being able to be sued for that conduct anymore, because. It seems like the majority of cases say it's okay. But there are a few that say. It causes due process problems. Just. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know anything more because the, the limitations period has run. Couple of, there's been a few courts that have said that, and that's a due process issue. But the majority of courts that I've seen Massachusetts. Supreme court, Connecticut Supreme court. For example, have said that there is no vested right. That's acquired. In that situation and distinguish it from. You may recall, we've talked about this in the criminal statute. We've talked about this in the criminal statute. We've talked about this in the criminal statute. We've talked about this in the criminal statute. Once a criminal statute of limitations expires. The person. You can't retroactively extend. For the person. But those cases have distinguished the criminal and civil statutes and said. It was not a due process problem. I just like to flag it for the committee so that it's. Not a surprise that that ever comes up. And there have been a few minority. Courts that have said that. Just so it's not a surprise later on. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Yeah. Gary, did you have a comment on that? Only briefly, I haven't reread the case. In preparation for this, because I didn't expect the issue, but I believe that there was a case. That comes out of the retroactive provision of the statute. From 1989 or 1990. When the child sexual abuse statute was changed to permit the child sexual abuse statute, I think that was the time that someone discovers the difficulty they're experiencing has been caused by the abuse. I believe. And again, I'd want to reread the case on it, but I believe the Vermont Supreme court had no trouble with the retroactivity provision. And. Rule that it was lawful. I think the distinction there is that it hadn't expired yet. That's true that they were, they were. They retroactively extended it. But, but the, I don't think the statute. I don't think that was the case. I don't think that was the case. I don't think that was the case. I don't think that this period had fully expired. That was my reading of it, but. Yeah, I'd have to read. It's not how I remember it, but I don't claim to remember things correctly. So I'd want to reread it as well. I'm in the same boat. That's why they have provision. I don't know that that works by the way, that was not an ad. Any other comments? And I want to. Labor the plane. Peggy. And witnesses. Thank you all very much.