 Good morning and welcome to Vermont House Judiciary Committee. It is Thursday, April 7th at 9.15 a.m. We're going to start with S-224 and actually relating to juvenile proceedings. We'll be brief this morning. I'm going to go over the new latest draft 1.1, which incorporates minor changes, the changes that we do have, and we have Legislative Councilor Spatrick to help us do that. I also want to let folks know that at the very end of the bill, there is a report in Section 18, and House Institutions and Corrections Committee is working on that section because that really is within their jurisdiction, and I know Eric has been working with them and they will get back to us. We're not ready to vote on this bill because we certainly do want to wait to hear from Corrections. With that, good morning, Eric. Welcome. Good morning. Thank you. Nice to see everybody. This is Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Council here to walk the committee through the proposed committee amendment to S-224. That's an act relating to juvenile proceedings. Remember, there's been some discussion about a few different issues that were requiring some further work, so there is some updated language in this new proposed amendment. I've highlighted where the changes are so that we can skip right to those. I assume that would be the best way to go through it. Just look at the changes. Is that right? Sure. Great. If everyone does have the committee amendment, which is draft 1.1 dated April 6th, you'll see the first series of changes are at least on my version, page nine, and it's in section 10. This has to do with, remember, there's a number of different provisions related to the rights of victims in delinquency and youthful offender proceedings. If you skip down to section 10, you'll see and this is the first issue has to do with, you recall the discussion around the presence of the victim during the proceedings and what the victim's rights are during their presence at the proceeding. Specifically, the discussion was around, you'll see that in this language appeared both, it's an existing law with respect to youthful offender proceedings and the proposal was to true those up with the rights of victims enlisted crime proceedings. You'll see at the very bottom of page nine there, there is no change to this first part, but the victim has a right to be present during all court proceedings subject to Rule 16 of the Rules of Evidence, which you recall as the authority of the judge to exclude witnesses until after previous witnesses have testified. They're not influenced by the testimony of previous witnesses as the concept there. So that part remains, but the issue was this struck through language that you see there at the bottom of page nine to express reasonably the victim's views concerning the offense and the youth. And so the issue that come up was the way this is phrased or the way it had been phrased, I should say, it appeared to permit the expression of views by the victim at any time during the proceedings and the question had been, well, is that the right approach or is it better to have the expression of the victim's views occur at the disposition of proceeding in the same way that the expression of the victim's views occurs at sentencing during adult proceeding? So with that in mind, the stakeholders group after it said there was some testimony on that from Judge Downport, the stakeholders group went off and worked on some language to try and respond to that concern. And you'll see the way that it does that is it strikes the language from the first part of that phrase. And instead, so if you read it, it's gonna fold in with the victim's presentation of their views at disposition. So if you read the full sentence, it would then go on to say what I just said about rule 16 and then to attend the disposition here to present a victim impact statement and to express reasonably the victim's views concerning the offense of the use. So in other words, it's been moved so that it's encompassed within what the victim does at disposition, as opposed to being permissible at any phase of the proceedings. So that's the way that issue was addressed to put that part of it, the expression of views at disposition. But then similarly, at the end of the sentence, remember the sort of related issue was well, maybe that there would be with the agreement of the court that there might be other times when it would be appropriate for the victim to present some oral or written statements about their views. Not necessarily at disposition, but at another time during the proceeding. So that is addressed with that final clause, which is an addition, which provides that they also have the right to submit written or all statements to the court at such other times as the court may allow. So if it is a situation where at a stage of the proceedings other than disposition, the victim may wish to present a statement and the court is in agreement that it would be appropriate. This provides the court with that discretion and that can that statement could be made at that time. So that's the way that issue is addressed and you'll see that this is with respect to statements at enlisted crimes, with respect to listed crimes, the same language or very similar language is also added. We'll get to it further on for youthful offender proceedings. So again, the idea is to kind of keep the rights consistent during the proceeding. So you'll see it as we go through the amendment to revise draft. I'd like to see it again, I should say. Thank you. Excuse me, so Eric, in terms of process. So this is language that the stakeholders looked at and gave you feedback. And we certainly can hear from them, but just if you could elaborate on the process over the past few days. Yes, that's exactly right. That after the previous committee hearing on this and the testimony about how it was to best situate the rights of the victim to express their views within the context of these hearings, the stakeholders went back, they met, I think they met, I think it was Tuesday morning, I believe. And then during the course of that few days, actually starting last Friday, there were emails between myself and them and they worked on this particular piece of the language and I believe, again, I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I believe there is consensus around that. So this is their sort of consensus proposal to address the concerns that were expressed last time the committee discussed it. Great, great. Thank you so much. Sure. So I can pause there in case anybody wants to comment, or I can move through to the next piece, whichever makes the most sense. Yeah, why don't we keep going? Yeah, I think that's a good question. The next piece, whichever makes the most sense. Yeah, why don't we keep going and then I'll see if any of the stakeholders that are here want to comment on these changes. Thank you. OK, yeah, sure. So again, just down on staying on page 10 here, you'll see there's a couple of their first change there. On line 12 is really just correcting a technical error that the reference to victim should have been a reference to the child because this is about victim notification when when the delinquent child is released from a facility and you see it inadvertently said the victim gets notified when the victim is released. That's obviously wrong. So that's just a technical correcting of that error. And then some clarification of the language about when this notification kicks in, discharges it really the right term released into the community is you'll see that that phrasing will also appear in the youthful offender statute, that same same change. And again, that's another issue that had been being discussed in which the stakeholders were working on, which is, you know, when this release from custody is appropriate and what the right language is for that, you know, particularly there had been some inconsistencies between the listed crime youthful offender and nonlisted crime provisions as to when release would apply when it would kick in. So the stakeholders worked on that language as well to try and make that the different types of proceedings consistent in that regard. It's a little bit different in the nonlisted crime context in that you'll see when we get to that. So you see here the right applies whenever the child is released into the community from a secure or staff secured residential facility, and that's going to be the same, I believe, for youthful offenders. It's a little bit different for nonlisted crimes, because there's presumably they're going to be, you know, different situations because those offenses are presumably less serious than they would be with listed crimes and youthful offender provisions. So you'll see when you get to that, it's slightly different, but the youthful, the YO and the listed crime provisions are meant to be the same, I believe. Again, that's a reflection of the consensus recommendation from the stakeholders group. So moving on. The word says if agreed to by the parties. Yes, that's moved. That's the nonlisted crime situation. So. But not the crimes that were or for youthful offenders. They have the right to get the notification. It's a blanket, right? You know, in the crime or YL, but if it's nonlisted, when it's presumably less serious, there has to be this agreement by the parties. Can you just state who the parties are so I can be. Well, it would be the state who would be prosecuting the offense, the child and the child's attorney. And most likely it's going to be the guard, but not the child. Is the child able to. The child and the attorney, not the parent or guardian. I'm not. That's a good question. That's a very good question. I'm not sure technically who the party is in that situation. So I'm going to defer to the experts on that one. Yeah, actually, I'm just having for I see your hand up. Good morning. Yes. Good morning. Oh, we can't hear you up your muted. There you go. No, no, no, we still needed. All right. Yeah. OK. So the parents of a juvenile in a delinquency proceeding would not be a party. They could be the guardian of Lightham for the youth, one of them or both of them sometimes. They might become a party if at disposition, the issue has to do with who should have custody of the child post disposition, whether the child or youth should, you know, continue to whether the parents should continue to have custody and the youth is under conditions, some conditions of probation, which is very often the case in the low level. The low level offenses, but in the more serious offenses, this state may be proposing that the youth be in DCF custody, especially if it's if they if they were asking for a secure or residential placement of any kind and or even a foster care placement. And in that case, when that happens, then the parents do have do have party status at disposition. They the the parent may be not in agreement with that and may feel that the youth would be better off living at home and the the courts got to sort that one out. So in that instance, they would become a party, but other than when when custody is at issue, but other than that, they're not a party in in in these proceedings. And the child, I'm not sure they're always a child, but the child will always have their voice. Yeah, they will always have an attorney and they will always have a guardian at Lightham in in most cases, the guardian at Lightham would be a parent. But if there are issues between the parent and the guard and the and the child, which would make the parent being a guardian at Lightham not appropriate, the court would appoint an independent guardian at Lightham. So I'm sorry. Yes, we shift the language between youth, child and juvenile in this. Someday we need to clean that up. But yes, if the child always considered a party, like I really really represents the child, but if the child, the child is always our attorney, right, the child is always a party, always, always. OK, thank you. Thank you so much. OK, thank you. Yes. So, yeah, that represents Rachel's point with actually a good segue into the that provision, which is actually in section 11. So as was kind of being touched on in that discussion, if you look at the bottom of page 12, this has to do with the rights to notification during a nonlisted crime. So that's the one difference between the nonlisted crime situation and the listed crime slash youthful offender situation is right there. The highlighted language sort of at the end of line 19, the beginning of line 20, if agreed to by the party. So in this case, the notification to the victim is subject to agreement of the parties. Otherwise, the language is the same. It's before the child is released into the community from a secure, stat-secured residential facility. That's the same. But if it's one of these less serious offenses, again, not a big 12 sort of offense, then whether the notification happens is going to be contingent upon agreement of the parties. So that's the difference. And Eric, Barbara, I'll get to a minute. So this is a language that I believe you worked on with. Jennifer Pullman, I think, from the. Yes, and I think the stakeholders were working on this as well. But again, I think there was consensus on this piece as well. OK, great. And Barbara has a question. So what if all the parties don't agree? I think the way it's written, if the parties don't agree, then the notification doesn't happen. So one party is uncomfortable and says no, it doesn't happen. Correct. OK. Yeah, whereas in the other for listed crimes and youthful offender situations, that agreement is not required. And it happens as of right whenever, whenever the child is released from the facility. That's the distinction, the way I read it. OK, so Jessica, you want to comment? I yeah, I thought maybe I could just be a little helpful here. Jessica Barquess for the Vermont Network. So the reason this is different here for nonlisted crimes is that if a juvenile is going into a staff secure placement as a result of these proceedings on a nonlisted crime, it's very unlikely that that is actually as a result of the crime or the relationship with the victim. But it's more about the the youth and their mental health or behavioral needs. And so it's less likely that the victim is going to need that notification and the listed crimes. And it's more about the juvenile here. Great. It's my inclination. I'm glad to hear that. And Jen, did you want to add anything? Good morning. Good morning, Jennifer Pullman for the Records Center for Crime Victim Services. I believe that Ms. Barquess captured it perfectly. This was a consensus language that was developed by DCF and the defender general and the courts and state attorneys in the center of the network and realizing that it was really striking and important compromise between recognizing that young people, if they are in a facility due to a result of a nonlisted crime, that again, it doesn't really reflect the concerns of what might be what have happened with that actual direct victim. So this was a piece that we felt was important in terms of striking that balance. Thank you. Questions? All right. So that actually makes me wonder about why the other parties aren't even on that list. Like, it's like, like, why does the state attorney weigh in on that? We understood it from our discussion with the stakeholders. There would be particular situations. And as we understand it, so many of these cases resolve and through, you know, just an agreement that there might be a piece where, and there was more serious harm, for example, let's say it was pled down to a nonlisted offense, but action did involve more serious actions that maybe that would be part of the agreement. And hearing from Attorney Paul and Attorney Mead and that that might be part of the agreement that results and that there might be an agreement that yes, in certain cases, in that particular case, notification would be appropriate. But it does provide for both parties to agree and understand that that is a part of that moving forward. All right. Thank you. Great. Great. Thank you. OK. So that takes us to the next page 14. Yeah. So this is this is just you'll see the exact same language that we've just been discussing. Now we're in the youthful offender section. And again, this is being treated the same way as the listed crime proceedings are being treated because they tend to involve these more serious offenses. So you'll see that the language regarding the victim's right to attend and present a statement that's in subdivision two on the top of page 14 is exactly the same as what we were just looking at. The right to be present during Rule 615. That's existing law. And then it goes on to say the same language you were just reviewing with respect to listed crimes to attend the hearing presented the impact statement, sorry, to attend the disposition hearing. So again, so the the expression of views is done at disposition. That's that first phrase as we just saw with listed crimes, including testimony in support of their claim for restitution and to submit. And I'm on line six and seven oral or written statements to the court at such other times as the court may allow. That's that same concept of that there may be other times when the victim's statements may be appropriate and that can be done with permission of the court. And then in that last sentence is identical as well. So the next subdivision you see there, subdivision three is the other issue that we were just discussing again, the same in youthful offender proceedings as it was for listed crimes that notification happens as of right. You see there, there's no consent of the parties required. Happens as of right before the youth is released in the community from the secure staff residential facility. So the language is true to thank you. Any members like Texas? No. OK, great. Thank you. So that takes us quite a bit further down to section 15 over on page 21. This is just a tentacle correction. You'll see that the language had this was talking about the court providing notice to the offender and a youthful offender proceeding. This is that idea. Remember that they have to be informed that by the court that they have to complete a risk and need screening in order to qualify for youthful offender treatment status. And just that there had been a terminology mistake that youthful offender status was the right way to put that. You'll see, for example, just a couple of lines down in existing law. Line seven and eight refers to youthful offender status, for example. So rather than treatment, that's just a terminology correction. Moving on to section 16, which is page 22. This is the psychosexual evaluation that can be ordered for certain offenses for a youth as part of the disposition case plan. You'll see that the addition, the new language is highlighted. And I think the court talked about that. I think it was Judge Zone, who might have mentioned it, that the court may order a psychosexual evaluation if clinically indicate for a child who's charged for one of the listed offenses. And lastly, the interest of justice here. And that's a new section, section 17 on page. 23. Remember, this was something that Judge Davenport and the department both have brought up. And the language itself was proposed by the department, I believe I did some editing and sent it back to the stakeholders. And I think that everybody again has there's consensus on the language now. And this is the concept. Remember that before a child can be housed in a facility where there are adults for purposes of maintaining federal funding and being in compliance with federal law, this interest of justice hearing must be held. And so this proposes to add a section of law to require this hearing before that can happen. So very similar to the language that you took a look at, I think you might have seen it when the department proposed it. As I say, I did some editing around with it, but it's very similar. You see, so that it definitely has to be quick, has to be no later than the next business day after juvenile who's awaiting trial or the legal process who was treated as an adult in the criminal division. After they've been within the business day after they've been taken into custody, the court has to hold this hearing and determine whether to issue an order. And then there's the cross reference to the federal law that specifically requires that, specifically requires that this hearing take place whenever there's an issue about a youth being housed with adults. So whenever that comes up, whenever there's the question presented to the court of whether that should be permitted, the court has to hold this hearing before making the order. And what the court has to conclude, what you see in line 10, is that it is in the interest of justice to hold the juvenile in a jail or other secure facility for adults, in this case for Vermont language owned or operated by DOC. And also if the order is issued, in other words, if they do issue the order to hold the youth in a facility with adults, they also have to determine whether to allow site or sound contact with adult inmates as well. That's also specifically part of the federal statute. Ken and then Barbara. Eric and probably Judge Davenport. But going back to the youth, what age was this again that we're talking about? I believe it's a good question. I think that it could be up to including someone who is being treated as a youthful offender. So it could be. I think that could be aged through age 21, but I'm not sure if that 21 year old being treated as a youthful offender would necessarily be subject to this required hearing. That's a good question or whether or not that only applies to, you know, 18 and under. So somebody 21 years old is not considered an adult. I'll wait for Judge Davenport. Yes, maybe I'm probably wrong on that. And excuse me, Ken, you're asking specifically about this interest of justice hearing. Yeah, because I'm not done with that. I got another question to follow right up. Okay, yeah. Yeah, Judge Davenport and then possibly Tyler Allen. So this says specifically a juvenile. And that is certainly up through 17 years old. And now we consider 18 year olds, some 18 year olds come into our juvenile system. And it's a little unclear. The feds don't really, since we're the only state that includes 18 year olds in our system, we would, I think our interpretation would be that if this juvenile was a juvenile who would have otherwise gone through the juvenile system that 18 year olds would be included, but it would not go further than 18 year olds at this point. So because this is specific to a juvenile who is being charged as an adult. And if you go back to, there's quite a complicated chart of your statutory provisions on when a juvenile can be charged as an adult. But think the big 12, right? If you are 16 and 17 year olds, you can be charged as an adult. You are charged as an adult if you are charged with a big 12 offense. A younger than that, it would have to be moved. No, younger than that, you could also be charged. There's a really great chart that shows when juveniles can be charged as adults. And I'm not looking at that right now. I still have to look at it because the provisions are complicated. But also remember that there are offenses where youth who are charged in the family division as juveniles, a case could be moved from, for example, a felony could be moved, non-big 12, but a felony, a serious offense could be moved from family to adult. And in that case, they would also be considered under this provision if they were gonna be placed in a adult facility, which is unlikely. I mean, we have very few kids who fall into this particular provision. And Tyler can probably speak to that better than I can in terms of actual numbers of kids who we didn't contemplate putting into an adult facility because we had nowhere else to put them. So just before Tyler starts, just one thing that, because I'm kind of new to all this judicial stuff here, but when I just, the interest of the justice hearings, like I can't for the life of me understand why somebody under 18 years old would be thrown in an adult facility, right? Nor, and I'm gonna get off topic a little bit, but it happened here a year or two ago that we had a social worker or whatever it is going into a hotel room with, I think, a juvenile sexual or something like that, putting them at risk with doing that. I mean, to me, that is just crazy, no common sense, no nothing, and I know I'm getting a little off topic here, but it's like, you gotta be kidding me, this isn't already a law. Or guidance to follow. Tyler maybe can respond to it better than I can, but remember that one of our problems here is the closing of Woodside as a secure detention facility, which is where we used to put juveniles who were charged as adults, but who were a serious risk to the public. So we don't have that juvenile detention facility anymore, where we're trying to build a new one, but it's not there yet, but Tyler can speak to it better than I can. Thank you. Tyler, good morning. Good morning for the record. My name is Tyler Allen, Adolescent Services Director with Family Services Division of DCF. Hopefully I can provide a little clarity to a couple of questions on the table to the most recent question. I think the point is well taken, the fact that there has been challenging incidents regarding youths that are presenting kind of a dangerous profile that have been put into a community setting for lack of placement option. I think that's part of the reasoning behind this. I think if the whole idea of an interest of justice hearing is for those exceptional circumstances where somebody has a crime where the public safety cannot be provided for within the juvenile system, that we have an avenue by which such juvenile could be housed securely. But to do so, we would need a judge to kind of oversee that process and to ensure that the placement is appropriate to the needs of the youth, to the needs of the community and public safety in general. That's the thinking behind interest of justice and to the initial question regarding the age of youths. I'd agree largely with everything Judge Davenport presented. Our, the expectation of the JJRA, which is the federal language that drives this whole process is that all youths that are under the age of full criminal responsibility is who this applies to. And so the youthful offenders, the federal government has guided us that they see that as a distinct population. The youthful offender population, I think they consider it extended jurisdiction and separate from age of full criminal responsibility. But there is some abstraction in that federal term. And so they're leaving it up to states to set what the age of full criminal responsibility is. And so in some states, that might be as young as 16 years old in Vermont and our reading of it and our understanding. And I believe this has kind of consensus thinking but behind the stakeholders group that have all talked about this. And we've been operating under the assumption that that goes up until the age of 19. So everybody under the age of 19 are under the age of full criminal responsibility. So that would apply. If raise the age continues, whenever that is, this bill proposes that's delayed a year. That would increase to include 19 year olds at such a time. But it wouldn't include the youthful offender population that can be extended above, if that makes sense. I also asked clarifying question about that if a youth ages into that after, let's say we have an 18 year old youth who are considering a youth under the age of criminal responsibility that is being housed in a adult correctional setting. If they turn 19 while they're in that setting then this no longer will apply to them because they've passed that threshold. So I think the federal government want a concrete threshold. Originally we were having conversations about it could vary depending on what side of the equation where they fall. So that's the kind of general. It's a little bit complicated and Vermont is more complicated than other places because of the raise the age initiative. Thank you. Thank you, Barbara to do. So part of my question I think got answered, which is my understanding was that the feds want sight and sound separation. And what we were hearing from DOC was that they would have a one on one DOC worker at times with an offender in order to have the sight and sound separation, which so one of the things I'm wondering is when would we ever find it appropriate to have someone not have sight and sound separation and how can we make sure that the alternative doesn't end up being equally bad in a different way? We would like to, thank you. Go ahead, please Tyler. Yeah. Thank you. I think that's an excellent question. So part of what this and it's in the language that I think we're reviewing here. During an interest of justice hearing the judge can make an order written finding that it is in the interest of justice that a youth is held in adult facility. And in that same hearing, the judge can also make a determination to waive sight and sound separation. So categorically we do sight and sound separate this population from an adult population, but a judge can make the determination it is in the interest of this youth to actually not be sight and sound separated from the adult population. And that might speak a little bit to what, I believe Josh Rutherford provided some testimony of concern from DOC saying that they're forced to hold a youth in this scenario in isolation from the population which could be harmful and detrimental to their wellbeing because holding somebody in isolation is not an encouraged practice. And so this would allow for a judge to make that determination at that point. Is it appropriate to place in this setting? And if so, is it appropriate to sight and sound separate them or better to have them be integrated into the adult community? But why is in the interest of justice it's like we're either gonna torture you by putting you with adults who we know when adults are with younger people the outcomes are gonna be worse or we're gonna put you in solitary. So which of these two things are in the interest of justice? Like that, there's no justice there. There's no justice there for that young person having any hope of coming out better or for society. So I don't get why those are on the menu. Sorry, I see Jen, whoever would like to respond to that. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you. Jennifer Micah, general counsel for DCF. I think that's a really important question and you'll see in the bill that Eric walked you through that we do have a study, a report that's supposed to come out and actually representative Emmons indicated that she wants it to be a plan for what we're going to do with justice-involved youth. And we all agree that placing you in- Oh yeah, it's on the bottom when you've repacked the chair. We all agree that placing you either in what is essentially a solitary situation or placing them in with older inmates is really not at all good for them. And so we are working towards creating systems that will support youth in age-appropriate placements. And right now, obviously we don't have Woodside and we do not have a detention facility for the 18, 19-year-olds. So there is some struggle with that that we are working on and we do intend to have a plan within the timeframes that will be required by this bill. Yes, Judge Evan-Port. Good to see you guys. Yeah, I think these questions really point to the importance quite aside from the fact that it's federally required of having these interests of justice hearings because I think that having a judge, somebody who has not been involved in the planning or any part of the take a look, a whole fresh look at why are you asking to put this child into a correctional facility? Why are you asking that there not be sight and sound separation? What are your options? Aren't there some other options? I mean, the hearing here could be protracted. It could take several hours to take the testimony that the judge would have to take the testimony and would have to make findings in order to place this child in a correctional facility, whether they're sight and sound. They've gotta make findings that are in accordance with the criteria and you'll see at the end of this, it says the end of the language here, it says including the criteria set forth in the federal law. Well, the criteria makes you look at everything related to this child and at all the other alternatives. Possible alternatives. So they're like seven different factors you have to look at. The judge has to look at and has to make written findings. So you're talking about a lot of process here, but I think this process is really important because I think this is your safety valve. You're making sure that this is really the best decision that could possibly be made if that's what it is. And the court could very well find, no, it's not into the interest of justice, go back and find another alternative. That's also a possibility, possible outcome at these hearings, but it does point to the importance of this language. That's important. It's our choice, right? Policy wise to decide, we have to have these hearings, but that's only if we keep on the menu the option of having an adult prison be a placement for people under a certain age. And then if we want that, if we want sight and sound separation, but we could make a policy that says, unless extreme safety, of the community and justice are at stake, this will only be you. Like, we don't have to offer that. It's our choice, but if we offer it, we have to have a hearing. Yeah. I'm not sure of your question. This language, you have to have a hearing, but if you wanted, yes, I mean, theoretically as a policy matter, you would just similar to the statute that we already have for juvenile cases that are in the family court, there is a statute that says, no, you can't do this. You can never replace a juvenile in an adult facility. And there has to be sight and sound separation. So, I mean, that's a possibility, but here you are talking about a smaller subset of juveniles who are being charged as adults and are in the adult court. And that in and of itself means you're talking about kids who are being charged with pretty serious offenses. Thank you. Ken and Kate? Sure. Right? Yeah. Just for curiosity, how long has Woodside been shut down? It was officially closed in October of 2020. So about a year and a half. Thank you. So when Woodside was closed down, was there a plan where we were gonna house these youth for protection of them and also society? We put in place the contract with Sanunu. And we had it, and I believe that the secretary at the time requested that DCF come up with a plan. And that's what we are currently trying to get the Newbury facility in addition to using Sanunu at this point. Trying to get to what facility? The facility in Newbury. So in other words, in between there, everything kind of didn't work out right. And we've kind of got a situation on our hand that's not good for anybody. I think it's fair to say that we do not have all the facilities that we need for some of the youth that we take care of, yeah. Fascinating. Thank you. And my understanding is that Sanunu has not been taking youth for a bit. That's what we heard. They stopped, as with every facility, they had the same kind of staffing problems that everybody did. And so they did stop taking youth for I believe two or three months in the latter part of this year, of the latter part of last year and the early part of this year, but then they restarted in mid-January, early January. And we haven't had any trouble since then. Who closed Woodside? That was a decision by the Agency of Human Services. Thank you. Yeah, so I guess a couple of things. One, I had some questions about this section of the bill as well. I reached out to Marshall Paul and I think where I sort of landed is along the lines of what I'm hearing now, which is these youth who are being charged as adults are being placed in adult prisons currently without this process in place. And so I think one of the concerns I had, because I was trying to understand the language, was it seemed like it was just setting it up to be compulsory for any youth who is being charged as an adult and talking to Marshall. It helped me understand that the cross-reference to the federal statute clarifies that it's only youth who are being recommended for placement in an adult prison. So it's not like looking at adult prison placement for every youth that comes through the process. And I think that helped me to feel better. I do just have a comment because it keeps being brought into the conversation. It's concerning to me. No one's explicitly saying this, but I would be really concerned if we walk away from this conversation feeling like glorifying Woodside in any kind of way. I mean, the Woodside was a horrible placement. And there is a tremendous amount of research and evidence that it's coming out to reflect just how horrendous the conditions were at points in that space. And so I understand it's getting away from, it's been pulled into the conversation as I think as we're talking about how to support youth who are really at risk. I just wanna be careful that we don't glorify a system that was really, really broken and doing a tremendous amount of harm to people in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Can I just clarify? And it is relevant because the next section talks about a report and institutions is looking on this and they wanna plan, but we'll see that. Yes. Can I glorify a, what was the word about Woodside? Glorifying, I'm not glorifying anything. I'm just saying we have no system in place that worked and it's totally unacceptable to me. And it's like everything went to hell and we're not taking care of the youth. We're not taking care of public safety. And me sitting here as a lawmaker is unacceptable to me. And I want that just made perfectly clear. Like, very seldom do I get upset in this room over things like that. I get upset over other things, but it's not something like this. This is like, we could have, should have done something a heck of a lot better than what we did. And I'm not blaming anybody on Treen or wherever, but somewhere we had a serious, serious meltdown in the system. And thank God that I met Judge Davenport to understand the things that a judge goes through to try to make determinations of what I guess lawmakers really do because it's, we don't make your job easy. So I'm gonna shut up now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. Appreciate that. Go ahead. Yeah, I just got a quick question. Good morning, everyone. So with the closing up, I believe the only state operating facility in Vermont, obviously, and I believe Santa Hill has been closed. And I'm not sure if 206 Depot is still in use other than those present or non-present facilities. Can any one be lodged? I realize those are private facilities in like 206 Depot if they've been charged with a crime? No, they cannot. So we have no plain visa to speak then when this all came about, other than Sununu. Sununu was the fallback for us, recognizing that we have a very small number of youth who actually fall into this category. Were you able to appropriate a number of beds there? Like we limited five, 10, whatever that may have been in Sununu? I believe it's six. I believe we have an opportunity to have six beds, which we've never filled. We've, I think we've used, I think we have had placed a total of six youth there in the time that we've had it as an option for us. And of those, I believe three of them were youth who came to Vermont as runaways from other states. Last question. So Sununu was only a youthful offender, placed in a facility that we couldn't place those 18 to 21 was we're talking about at Sununu? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? So it would be helpful for me if I could, hear from the stakeholders as to whether or not these changes reflect what you're looking for. And that you've reached it to the changes in draft 1.1. I recognize that there are things that are asked for that are not in here, or I don't want to talk about those. I want to just really look at the draft 1.1 and the changes. So why don't I start with them, and start to have them for it, please. I am not a member of the juvenile stakeholders group, but I'm very, I'm happy with the changes. And I want to thank the committee and thank Eric for bearing with me and making the changes that were made. I think that they work and that the bill is a better piece of legislation for that. So thank you. Great, thank you so much. So your concerns in your letter from the council have been met. Yes, yep. Excellent. Thank you. Anybody else? I am. Oh, sorry, go ahead, Tyler. I am a member of the stakeholders group. And so we did meet on Tuesday prior to this, but these revisions were made afterwards. Eric was able to send those revisions out to the whole stakeholders group, and we've shared them back and forth over the past few days. And so far, everybody who's weighed in has been in full support of these revisions. I will acknowledge that I haven't seen the defenders general Marshall's position on these. I imagine that he would be, that these changes are aligned with the conversations we had in the stakeholders group. I would be surprised to see if there's any significant objection, but I won't speak for him. Beyond that, everybody's either been in support or there was one provision that DOC thought was, wasn't impacting them. So they were abstaining from a position, but I would say broadly, we likely have consensus among that group with the changes that are in place in this draft. And I would welcome, I know Jennifer Pullman, I know Jessica and Jennifer Micah all are active with that group as well. So they can feel free to chime in. Thank you. So, Jessica. Hi, all, thank you, Jessica Barquess for the Vermont network. We have no concerns with this draft. And as Tyler said, we were part of that consensus in the stakeholders group. And I just wanted to reiterate for the committee that the victims rights sections of this bill are really incredibly important for us. That these are things that our member organizations and the juvenile victims that they work with have been asking for since the start of raise the age. And there have been a lot of concerns for victims in that process. So we're really, really pleased to see these in the bill and hope they stay as they are. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer Pullman, we've got two Jennifer's here. Jen. Thank you, good morning again, Jennifer Pullman from the Center for Crime Victim Services for the record will reiterate much of what Jessica Barquess said, which is that we entirely support the changes that are presented here today. We think it makes it a better bill that goes even further in terms of striking a balance between the different interests that are at play. And we do fully support them. I also want to second what Jessica Barquess said as far as while there are a number of victims provisions in here, those pieces have kind of been overlooked as we've been doing a lot of reform efforts that support young people, which we are in favor of. And we just do feel that these provisions are really important in making sure that as we make these reforms, as we change ages and increase the way that we can be more supportive of emerging youth, that we also just think about what victims voices would look like in those cases. I do have one very technical change that's been bothering me since this bill was in the Senate, which is with respect to section eight when it speaks to the law enforcement responsibilities with respect to victims. And there are four places where the language refers to gender and not a young person or a juvenile. I do think that since this is a provision within Title 33, even though we did import it from Title 13, I think that, again, the center would request that perhaps the language be changed from offender to more appropriately and as Judge Davenport recognized, we don't know if it's a juvenile or a youth or a child, but something that is more more comports with the Title 33 and where this provision would land. Thank you very much. I just want to make sure I understand what phrase or word you want to use there. Well, I think that's where Judge Davenport kind of highlighted this issue and whether it would be juvenile or youth, but I think either one of those, but I don't think offender should be in statutory provision within Title 33. Our suggestion would either be juvenile or youth, but I would defer to Attorney Fitzpatrick to determine in light of a comprehensive look at Title 33 what particular term would be the best. Anybody else? Great, thank you. Thank you, everybody, so much. And again, we're gonna wait for institutions to continue their work on the report and then we'll look at this last language and we'll be posted as to when we can move the bill. So thank you. So we are going to adjourn. I know a number of folks have constituents coming for Prevention Day. I'm gonna run up some services and so do we say 1040, 1045? Yeah, so we'll come back at 1045.