 Okay. We have gone through this bill and it is now up to draft 1.1 that's grown to nine pages from seven pages. That's what I can tell you. Rebecca Wasserman from legislative council is here to walk us through the latest draft. Mr. Chair, is this 163? Yeah, what did I say? That's okay. Just a note to Peggy. I clicked on it on the website and it takes you to an error page. Oh, yeah. Yeah, so I don't know what's up with that. I just did that and I didn't get that. Let me try again. Share the document if it's not up. But it tells me that the page doesn't exist when I click. That's weird. Can you try again? I just clicked it and it works fine. No, not for me. I'm not sure. If Becky's going to share the screen, it won't matter. I just wanted to let you know. Yeah, I don't know. It's very strange because it's. Why don't we share the screen just because there is some technical difficulties. You hear the systems hang out somewhere with the community? No. Oh, he's on an intelligent presentation. Can everyone see that? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Zoom is not cooperating. Okay. I'll just go. Go with what I have here. Thank you. Wasserman legislative council. This is a strike all amendment to Senate bill 163. Which was titled as introduced an act relating to state court jurisdiction for special immigrant juvenile status. The bill has changed in this version of the bill of the amendment. So I can. There were some global changes throughout that I think might be helpful to just mention before I start. So in the bill as introduced. The reference to. To the child who was petitioning for special immigrant. Child labor. To juvenile status was a at risk. Non-citizen child. And a change that was made throughout this, this amendment is to refer to those children as vulnerable. Non-citizen children. So you'll see that changed throughout. Primary changes throughout also deal with I guess not expanding but amending the definition of court to make it clear that the courts that can review these these petitions and make special findings for children. Our will have jurisdiction over the child in other circumstances than just probate and family division, and that these findings that are being made our findings that are within the jurisdiction of that court and not necessarily just being done because child has made this type of petition. So, Becky, this is Joe betting, could you just back up the line 19 on page one and tell me what the difference is between citizen and sit on the. Oh, that the version that you have the paper copy has a spelling error and I, I had sent Peggy an updated version which is what is reflected on the on the screen and will be on the website. I can't quite read it from this distance. What is citizen or citizens. Yeah, so that this the definition of child or children. So it's referring to someone who is unmarried individual or individuals who have not yet attained 21 years of age and who are not yet a United States citizen or citizens. Still sounds kind of straight to me but Phillips the English major. I think it looks okay. I think it's because I think we move forward. So, so this is actually one of the changes that were made is in the definition of child in subdivision to one page one. Adding to the definition that, along with being an unmarried individual or individuals who are not yet 21 that the child is also not a United States citizen or citizens. So it's a plural or singular. And I just wanted to point in subdivision one the deaf there's a definition of vulnerable here. And that is replacing that reference to at risk. That was in the previous version. So the change is in the definition of court, which is what I mentioned that the court is now means any court that has jurisdiction over an unmarried individual or individuals who have not yet attained 21 and who are not US citizens. So this is the probate division and the family division of the Superior Court that is meant to also include other courts that might have jurisdiction over a child in this situation for another reason. And so in terms of going through the amendment, do you want me to just go through where there were changes from the previous version. I like the major changes. So in subsection B, the there's there's no, this is just sort of reiterating what I mentioned before that the I'm trying that the court that's reviewing this petition has jurisdiction under Vermont law to make judicial determinations regarding the custody and care of children but is not. It's not specific to the special immigrant juvenile status under federal law, it's just that these courts under Vermont law have this jurisdiction over a child. So section C, the procedure for a petition. So when a vulnerable non citizen child or a person who is interested in the welfare of that child petitions the court, the petition for special findings has to include all of the requirements for what is in the federal legislation for special immigrant juvenile status, but this section is no longer. So it follows what's required in the federal law but it no longer refers to just special immigrant juvenile status. It is, again, a little bit broader that this that any court that has jurisdiction over a non citizen child in this circumstance would be able to make these petitions, or would be able to have make these special findings. That's my last question. I'm just wondering, could this also apply to a child in another country. I think the intent here and I'll let some other folks jump in on that but I think the intent here is that this is a child in the United States, who is making this petition to apply for was making this petition for special findings which will allow them to stay in the United States, if they are granted special immigrant juvenile status. I guess the peaceful doesn't say stay someplace I'm thinking of a family who wants is in the process of maybe adopting a foreign child think fall apart before the child gets to this country. Even though they've done all the paperwork and all of that, could that child come under this provision. I think if they're adopting a child than that child would become a US citizen through that adoption. Yes, I'm talking about before they get to this country and become a citizen talking about something happens in the child's country of origin before the child gets to the United States. One thing is that this would not be available in that circumstance but I can defer to those who are Aaron or Rebecca or anyone else want to comment on. I would be happy to comment on that. Good morning everybody special immigrant juvenile status is something is that non citizen children can only apply for once they're in the United States. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that question if I could, Senator Sears, shouldn't it be restricted to children who are residing within the geographical confines of Vermont. So, I don't know if I'm the best person to answer this this could be a question about state court jurisdiction. Vermont State Court jurisdiction in general, what a Vermont State Court have jurisdiction over a Mexican national living in Mexico. I don't believe so and this this bill certainly is not intended to change that. That is Rebecca Turner from the opposite defender general I'm sorry for the record, you at least once just state your name so that the record can pick up who you are. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sears and I agree with what Aaron Jacobson is saying. Whether or not the Vermont courts having jurisdiction over juveniles could reach to that juvenile outside of Vermont. Again, we have judge's own a here and others here with DCF can win but I don't see that being the case again, the deaf and so and I don't think that it's necessary to add that language, Senator Benning, because of how the definition of dependent on the court page two, lines three and four. That is a required finding for the state courts. And to make a finding that a juvenile is dependent on the court means that the person is subject to the jurisdiction of of the Vermont court so it's built into the definitions themselves this threshold requirement that the state court be able to invoke the jurisdiction over the child. Now, here, what we're trying to do is merely make sure it's clear that that jurisdiction extends to youth who are between, you know, over 18 and not yet 21. And so that again, that overall objective of this bill remains unchanged, and really is the narrow focus here. Any other questions of where we've been so far which is, we're online. Four of page three. We just had an explanation of that section. Keep going then. Yep, please. So the rest of that section has not has not said substance substantively changed it is just laying out what needs to be in the findings that the court will is being asked to issue in the petition. Page four. Line six under additional findings. What was added here is that if the party if requested by party a court may make additional findings that are supported by evidence and and Vermont law was added to that. Can I just ask a word about the use of the word abandonment. So, let's just my understanding is a child is here. Came with the mother, for example, got to Vermont she was a dairy worker is because of immigration is sent back to whatever home country she came from. That's, is that abandonment. I mean, I don't think she abandoned the child the, the ice did. There are other words that can be used there. So I think that this is lining up with the language used in federal law. And I think that the court interprets that maybe something that Rebecca or Aaron or Jill might be able to answer better than me. This is Rebecca Turner from the defender general's office for the record. I think that abandonment is is interpreted broadly and to the extent that that Senator Sears your concern is that that it was not willful abandonment by them by the mother and that the language here is broad and it already includes or similar circumstances. Right. So unable to care for the child because she's been physically prevented in that instance by by us government officials for moving her so I think that your concern that we need to maybe broaden that language is already there and I'm speaking. Rebecca, I think I'm looking at page three line seven on this latest draft 1.1. Again, it goes to underlying abandonment abuse neglect or similar circumstances. Okay. Oh, that helps. Thank you. In page four subdivision three under health safety and welfare considerations. So this section is saying that in making a determination of whether it's in the best interest of the child to be returned to the child's home country or their parents previous country of nationality. The court will consider health safety and welfare considerations, and the language on lines eight through 10 was added that the health safety and welfare of the child must be a paramount concern when the court considers the best interest of the child. In the next few sections, some language was removed here and added to section two with respect to extending the guardianship for children who are over 18, but have not yet attained 21 years of age so I'll get to that. I don't know if it's further along but that that was another sort of major change to this amendment was that all of the language was in title 14 and in this amendment adds some new language in title 33 with respect to the extension of the guardianship for those youth over the age of 18. The notice requirement and subsection D. Removed a reference. Sorry. Oh, I thought I heard a question on subsection D at the bottom of page four removed a reference. For when trying to find the identity or location of the child's parents, the court has to serve notice and the previous version referred to providing this alternative method or service or waving service if the child sort of fit the description of what was in the federal law for special immigrant juvenile. And this removes that that sort of cross reference to the federal law here. But it's a may not a shell. It's in the court's discretion to to decide to provide an alternative methods or service or wave service so it's a may. Okay, with that. We have no issues with that I, I would note that the one section that I did have a concern about was the one that said guardianships because it talks about a guardianship pursuant to this says for purposes of appointment of a guardian of the non citizen child pursuant to this section, but this section does not appoint guardians. As Ms. Wasserman said that's done under title 14 so I think the language if it said for purposes of this section, comma, the term child or minor shall include if you if you remove the language that says appointment of a guardian of the non citizen child pursuant I think that cleans it up and makes it clear that the appointment is done under title 14 and not 33. That was judge zoning by the record. I apologize, thank you. No, I find I'm just, we're trying to be informal but at the same time, somebody checks back to the record wants to know who just spoke. Well, moving right along. Subsection e expeditious adjudication. And a question came up about this in last time I testified about it says that the court shall hear adjudicate an issue findings of fact on any petition for special findings under the section as soon as it as administratively feasible and prior to that child turning 21. So a change here was made that says that the court shall do this when it is in the best interest of the vulnerable non citizen child. So it does give the court some discretion of determining that it's in the best interest of the child to hear the petition. So I'm going to measure the findings as soon as it is as administratively feasible. And then page six. The construction section of the, of the bill on line for subsection each. It's, this was changed from this section shall be liberally construed to be in the best interests of the child and it was amended to be liberally construed to its legislative purpose. Then section two is all new language as I mentioned. So this is adding in title 33 the guardianship language, which says a new section retention of jurisdiction over certain vulnerable non citizen children. So subsection a uses the same definitions that were entitled 14 with respect to vulnerable child and non citizen. And then subsection be is saying that the family division may retain jurisdiction over the non citizen child who is not yet turned 21. For the sole purpose of adjudicating a petition for special findings and making judicial determinations regarding the custody and care of the child consistent with this section. Nothing in the section expands the scope of the court's jurisdiction to order a youth into the custody of the commissioner for children and families pursuant to this chapter. The procedure for petition and subsection C is similar to what is laid out in title 14 so the child or a person interested in the welfare of the child, petition the court for the special findings to obtain relief from the underlying underlying abandonment abuse neglect or similar circumstance. There's a cross reference here that says in accordance with the procedure and title 14 section 3098 the court reviews that petition including affidavits and other evidence issues the finding of facts, and makes relevant conclusions of law consistent with section 51, a one of this chapter, and that is the purposes section that has the best interest, best interest of the child laid out set forth in that section. Subsection D is the expeditious adjudication with respect to this title 33. So it says when it is consistent with the purposes as set forth in section 51 and one of this chapter which is the purposes section of this title, the court also can determine that it shall hear the case and adjudicate and issue the findings for special for on any petition for special findings for a child prior to them turning 21 years of age. Subsection E is duplicating the language and title 14 about the additional remedies under Vermont law and similar findings of fact. So a child is not limited under this section from petitioning for special findings. Any other petition under another provision of law for any other rights and remedies that's available to that child. And then in subdivision to it says that the section shall not limit the court from issuing similar findings of fact or conclusions of law in any other proceedings concerning child. In any subsection F says that in any judicial proceedings in response to request that the court makes special findings to support a petition, the information regarding the child's personal information such as immigration status nationality place of birth is protected by state that remains confidential and this confidentiality and exemption from the public records act is also in the language and title 14. And then the effective date is July 1 of this year. And finally on lines nine to 10 the new title of the bill is an act relating to state court petitions for vulnerable non citizen youth. Thank you. That's helpful. My understanding is you work closely with several folks and particularly from the Office of Attorney General and the Office of Public Defender. And I appreciate their input and their help with this. Are there any comments from anybody's in the audience and the only change I've heard so far as opposed by judge zone. So anybody who would like to speak if you could take that down now. Becky, thank you. Yeah, question. Good. If I'm reading this correctly, I'm just going to throw out a scenario here. St. Johnsbury has a resident mom without the child but over in little to New Hampshire is the father with the child. She is now 20 years old. The father leaves. There is certainly the possibility that ice could come along and say, we're going to bring the child back to country of origin. If I understand this correctly the mom could petition a Vermont court and make a claim that whatever the past living conditions were the previous were threatening to this individual's life in some fashion. Am I reading that correctly. So, I think that there isn't a needs to be the child's health. The child needs to be considered vulnerable so the child's health safety or welfare. The child has to be in jeopardy due to abuse neglect abandonment or similar circumstance. And that the child's return to the country of origin would not be in the best interests of the child so I don't know in this scenario, what the child's circumstance would be, but they would have to meet the requirements. They are their health safety or welfare is in jeopardy. So I guess I'm saying I don't know if the mother in this scenario. Just because a father might not be, might have been deported in this scenario I don't know what the situation is with the child's mother. And I can let somebody else speak to that you might who actually would be a practicing in this area but that's my my reading of the situation I think it would be specific to the circumstances of that child. I just like to lay out the scenario properly so I can get a good answer. If the father was providing food and shelter for the 20 year old because 20 year old cannot speak English was unemployed, etc. And the father leads. If I read this correctly, the mother could petition the Vermont court to demonstrate that this 20 year old now considered child is in danger of their health or safety or their welfare being affected. Her mom could go into a Vermont court and make an argument that number one that child is in fact in some kind of welfare concern. And she may provide evidence that the country of origin was for instance gang related activity that's why they left and this child would be threatened with being brought into the game if I read this correctly. That scenario could actually be accomplished with this piece of legislation. Am I incorrect. So I think where I where I might need a little help with this is that I don't know that Vermont would have jurisdiction over that child in this situation because that child is living in New Hampshire. So I think that there would need to be a situation showing that once the father has left for some reason. If that child needs to be under a guardianship for some reason if that guardianship was transferred to the mother in Vermont then a Vermont court would then have jurisdiction over that child, but I think there would be a few steps that would need to happen I don't, it wouldn't be an automatic situation for my reading of this. I'm assuming the mother would be acting to either go through a probate court or petition of family court pursuant to this legislation to get that child into a Vermont court and that was why I raised the issue before about Vermont court as opposed to any court. I just want to be clear that if we're going to enact this we have a full understanding that the scenario I've just laid out could actually happen here. I think if the mother in Vermont, if there was a reason for that child to be in a guardianship situation and the mother, and there was a petition for that in Vermont. As part of that the court would have jurisdiction over that child so these special findings could be made in the court at that time. But the child would also have to meet the required these requirements to receive those special findings it wouldn't be automatic just because the child was being the guardianship was being moved over to Vermont the child would have to meet the other requirements of being you know a non citizen child who was you know, subject to some kind of abuse abandonment or neglect or other circumstance and it would not be safe for that child to return to their home country or their parents home country. I couldn't be wrong with judge zoning I'd like a little help here. It seems to me this bill is providing Vermont with jurisdiction over that child. If the appropriate circumstances could be alleged by the petitioner mother who is in St. John'sburg. Tom zoning. Yep. Go ahead. Judge. Right so Tom zoning chief superior judge. I, Senator bending I think you're correct. And I, I would just highlight that. The, I use the word the rub here is that, I think, Senator bending you and myself and others may be thinking about well uniform child jurisdiction acts. And do we have jurisdiction over a child who lives in New Hampshire. The UCC j a that's set forth under title 15 specifically defines child as an individual who has not reached age 18. Correct. This actually this presents a unique circumstance that it doesn't really it doesn't fall under what we would traditionally look at as jurisdiction for a child. And so I think that it would permit a Vermont court. If that mother comes in and says I have this 19 year old, and they can meet both factors that the abandonment let's say in the, in the abuse perspective, and the second perspective. I think yes, it would appear to provide the Vermont court with jurisdiction to go forward. And again, the traditional UCC j a would not kick it out because the child's over 18. Thank you. I'm just trying to make clear exactly what the potential is on what we're doing. Any other comments, questions, concerns. If I could just comment briefly. And because I didn't say this before Aaron Jacobson Attorney General's office. So, Senator bending under your scenario right that that 19 or 20 year old child. And maybe because as you mentioned, does not speak much English and previously his father was helping provide his food and shelter and taking care of him might feel the need to move to Vermont to be with mom. At that point in time, if that 20 year old consented mom could file for a guardianship in Vermont State Court. And then if that guardianship is granted, then as well. If the mom or the child could petition for the special findings that are laid out in this bill, and if the child could obtain those special findings that would allow him to then apply for special immigrant juvenile status with the federal immigration agency. So that's, that's how that would look procedurally Aaron, Aaron, if I could follow up in your statement you said if the child conceded what if the child does not concede. Now we have a parent coming in under this statute that seems to me to override any decision about this 18 or 19 or 20 year old conceding to have it happen. I don't want to walk away from the discussion of thinking everything's going to be hungry Dory I'm just trying to cover all basis. Sure, I think it's a great question. The way I read this bill I'm looking at page. And we're talking about children who are over 18 here. So it says for purposes of appointment of a guardian of the nonsense and child pursuant to this section. The term child or minor shall include a person who is less than 21 years of age, and who consents to the appointment or continuation of a guardian after 18 years of age. So, after age 18, then that you over 18 years, who's also under 21 would have to consent to that kind of guardianship. Thank you. Any other questions. If I may, this is Rebecca Turner from the Office of the Defender General. I just needed Rebecca just a typo on on page one, a line 15. It's written here in the version I have child's parents county of origin and I and I think that was supposed to be country country of origin. I'll address that. Thank you. And I also for the record wanted to say that that judge zone is suggests suggested correction. Certainly, is, is amenable from the defender general's perspective, and would support making that change. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments questions about this draft with the one change. Everybody's okay with this. I mean, in the room. Senator Sears. This is Jill Rudge clinical professor of immigration law from Vermont law school. I'm just offering a comment that Vermont law schools immigration clinic supports this latest iteration of the bill including the amendments proposed today. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else. Jennifer from DCF any concerns or you'd like to. No, we thank you I've worked with Aaron and with Rebecca and we got the language in around not expanding the scope of custody for DCF so DCF has come to with this and we're comfortable proceeding with us when we do have custody of a child already we just didn't want it expanded. Okay. I wanted to take a brief opportunity to thank Rebecca for working Rebecca Wasserman for working with all of those folks that are here on the line right now to get this into some shape that is that can work for. Hopefully a small number of kids but that may need the special immigrant status. With that is there. This would be draft. I'm assuming 2.1 or 1.2. You have to make a minor change. Yes, it would be draft 1.2 and I would be correcting the spelling mistake on page one from county to country and I would be striking out on the guardianship subdivision on page for the appointment of a guardian of the non citizen pursuant to. So it would say for purposes of this section the term child or minor shall include. Any further discussion on this and is there a motion to report favorably or to amend s 163 as presented in draft 2.1. Senator White has moved that we report this favorably is there any further discussion or the amendment. We amend the bill. Right. Thank you. Please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Is there a motion to report favorably as amended. Senator White. Yes. I just wanted to say that bills like this never get. They're not glitzy and they don't get a lot of attention and stuff a bit from the press or from anybody else as a matter of fact, but they make a huge difference in the lives of those that they touch. They don't get the press that all those high profile bills get so I will. Well said, Senator White. I totally agree. I think. Any further discussion. If not, Senator White has moved report s 163 as amended favorably to the Senate. Thank you. Please call the roll. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. It's great. We're unanimous and I thank all of you very much. Who would like to report this bill. Recognizing you may not get headlines. But if somebody will help me on assuming that I'll be out of my stupor. I'm sure that ledge council and folks that are here on stage will be more than happy to help you with the report center or whites. It's kind of an abstract area that will and I think you said it well so I will leave it at that. And thank you very much. So, Peggy you'll get the copy to Senator White at some point today. As soon as I get it. I'll get it from. I'm not just going to. So while we have. That's if I want to send me any. We'll do when you in statements. Please, please feel free. Peggy while we have judge zone here. And before we go to the break. I believe you do have just justice. I'm sorry, I don't have any more of this. Any other. Wurple's nomination now. So, why don't we set for next Friday, we're going to have a very limited hour. Why don't we set her confirmation for next Friday. If that works for the justice. And I'll let judge zone a work that out with her. from this Friday, a week from this Friday, not this Friday. I will let Judge Waples know that it would be the 18th at 9 a.m. Is that in-person or is Zoom permissible? Zoom is gonna be permissible on the 18th. After that, we don't know. We're waiting further instructions from the leadership of the Senate, but I can definitely say that we will be zooming on the 18th. I will let her know. Thank you. All right. Or a hybrid of that, I should say. Okay, well, why don't we take a break until 11 when we take up S-140, which is Senator Baruth's bill, and we held off on voting on it until he got back. Much appreciated.