 Thank you We're now taking up s 163 an accolade in the state court jurisdiction for special immigrant juvenile status and we have with us and anarchy I'm sorry direct I Have messed up more names than this week Must be ready for a week for a week off It's the spelling it throws everybody off. It's Erica. Well, I was trying, you know, and I it's not like we haven't met before Well, anyway, the bill is 171 60 3 and It's really a Anytime we get into immigration status and so forth Um, we did think we should hear from the Department of Children and Families which is often charged with taking care of these kids. So If you or Jennifer Micah the council for the department wish to speak on this we'd appreciate any thoughts you have Great, I will just do a few words of introduction and then turn it over to Jennifer fine So good morning Chairman Sears and members of the committee for the record My name is Erica Radke deputy commissioner of the family services division of dcf I'd like to thank you all for inviting us today to discuss Senate bill 163 The dcf does have some questions or concerns about what the bill would require for the department In terms of guardianship for individuals over the age of 18 That would require this special immigrant status And with that being said, I'll turn it over to dcf general counsel general Jennifer Micah Who'll provide specific details outlining our position Jennifer We can't hear you Jennifer. Oh, can you hear me now? Yeah, perfect Um, uh, thank you for inviting me. I'm Jennifer Micah dcf general counsel You've asked us to present testimony on s163 relating to special immigrant status for juveniles The purpose of which was explained to you by rebecca turner and jill rudge Um, namely to provide vermont courts with the jurisdiction they need to provide youth with a venue To get a hearing that can lead to greater opportunities for citizenship offered already by the federal government I understand that you passed the up to age 18 bill Almost exactly two years ago and I understand that it was slightly derailed by the lockdowns Which is why you didn't get up to age 21 Erin Jacobson has filled me in a little bit on that and she'll she might talk to a little bit more So the the reason the age it didn't go up to age 21 I think it's just the confusion that arises as any time you go past age 18 due to issues around adulthood um in the nearly two years of this bell bill has been on the books and recognizing that these guardianships were in fact Happening before even before the legislation was passed dcf has not had a youth pat placed in our custody um For these purposes that we I have been able to ascertain in reaching out to as many people at dcf as I could I have spoken with erin Jacobson and i and rebecca turner about this bill and by and large We don't have concerns about it except for the fact That there is confusion about whether the over age 18 includes dcf custody when it talks about guardianship and On page five section five the language states that a person's that a court is permitted to extend guardianship beyond a person's 18th birthday It does not have any exemption for dcf nor does it specifically state that dcf is included we do Maintain custody over people who are 18 or over For chins cases. We do not do it for anything else, but we do have extended care agreements with you Those are not custodial In that they do not arise from a court hearing or from a court order Those are purely voluntary. This is something different that would require the court order For this guardianship and we do not currently have capacity for that So if that is something that is going to be asked of us we would need to talk about what impact that might have on um, the work that we already do But like I said, I have been in touch with rebecca and with erin and we have all agreed that we need to keep talking about it and are working together to To see what we can do to come up with language that would be acceptable to all of us because I I think there is still some Disagreement around that particular piece Okay Are you looking for questions? Yeah, is that complete your testimony on? Yes, it does. Thank you the breast breast of the bill is okay Yes That's really the only issue we have is what does it mean for dcf's um custody of over eight teams Alice did you have a comment or question? Uh, I do have some I do have I think two questions Just lots of I was um the section I was asking about was on Page six of seven section f It's it's talking about referral for services or protection And and at risk non-citizen who is the subject of a petition for special findings under the section may be referred for psychiatric psychological education occupational medical dental Social services, etc. And what I'm wondering about is you you may be somebody who's not even Um the petition has not gone through but a petition has been filed um would be Would would dcf be responsible for paying for all of these services? Who would be paying for these things? Are they and would they be eligible for? Medicaid So those are questions that I think erin Jacobson would be better Um position to answer because she has in fact done this work And she was involved in the drafting of the bill So I think that she would be the one to as answer those specific questions I was curious about that when I listened to the testimony last week though about who Where do the kids go for these evaluations and who would pay for them? Right and and also the line 19 of the same page it says that the section um shall be liberally construed so it seems like You know that would be one thing if you're looking at liberally it seems like yes dcf might be responsible Who knows? But could be another department There's no specific language around the budget budgeting for that in here and you were right And I'm also on page four um There's a couple of places in section b. It uses the terms has suffered from abuse neglect abandonment or a similar or similar circumstances, I mean just kind of seems very loose similar circumstances And not that I you have to answer that but it's certain line 18 also when it speaks about When considering an at-risk non-citizen child's health safety well for the court shall consider whether present or past living conditions Will adversely affect the child's physical mental or emotional health um What are they looking for I'm not sure what's going on there I think Thanks Okay, um Are there any questions for dcf? I think it's pretty clear your concern is the 18 age 18 to 21 And currently that's only a voluntary situation for kids who have been abused or neglected. Is that correct? That's correct. It's voluntary outside of a court. There's no court involvement in that Unfortunately Yeah We found I found out today at the last minute that rebecca wassen is not available to us and she's going to listen to this on youtube so I I'm Gonna have to figure out how to answer some of senator nick's questions But for the present in terms of dcf you have no questions about the rest of the bill is just that one fact We just really need clarification on whether the expectation is that dcf would be taking kids into custody who are over age 18 And what would be our responsibilities in that regard and obviously we would Oh, we feel our system is already strained and so it would be a heavy lift for us even Even if there weren't that many which it seems that there aren't But it could also become a more widely used Avenue if it did if people did start realizing that it was available and We don't currently have for instance something like extended foster care Which other states might have and we would like to do that But we need more funding and we would need more staff for that and that's we are planning that but that's in the future So this would be an element of that but not we're not really not ready for it yet Okay, and I would also add that as some of the language that senator nick pointed out to where it was ambiguous in terms of Neglect or treatment from the past then those types of issues really would not fit into Our statutory scheme either so I wouldn't those youth would not really be able to be under our jurisdiction So there there does seem to be some ambiguity that would need to be addressed Okay And if I could just make one more clarification about the kids who are in extended care Those are kids that are already known to us They come up through as when they're when they're minors and then they can stay in the system if they choose to But this allows potentially would allow You know a 19 or 20 year old to be placed in our custody Which would be really very difficult. I was not knowing My assumption is those voluntary arrangements are sometimes kids who were graduated from high school and you don't want to Ship them off at 18 Or even college students or whatever and you're trying to You know follow through with the child until we're able to be on their own right the extended care is actually for High school students, but it can go up to age 23 And then we have another program for other kids who are not in extended care, but for whom we will provide assistance finding home and employment and You know all those adult things that you need to to do when You don't have adults helping you Exactly just to make that transition to adulthood as smooth as possible I remember one time having an agreement for a kid that was at tool for who was turning 18 on it in July and was Had a full scholarship to romantach But they didn't open till September and there was fear of what would happen if he was On his own for two months And the fear was well founded by the way, but We were he was not willing to provide a voluntary agreement, but I think bcf was willing to Continue him until he turns until he got the to romantach Good news is you're doing very well now and he's in his 40s That is good news. Yeah, that's the good news bad news is he never got to romantach But anyway, that that's a little side story, but It's similar So, um I guess well if judge zoney doesn't mind we're going to jump to Aaron Jacobson Um, and whether you do you have similar concerns about the 18 to 21? And can you help with any of senator nick's questions or concerns? I can certainly try. Thank you for the record. My name is Aaron Jacobson. I am um the co-director of the community justice division at the attorney general's office, but I'm also still part-time until march 4th at Vermont law school's immigration clinic. So I'm wearing two hats and hopefully that's um You know, the primary hat here is just to provide some historical information about how We got to this bill should that be helpful? But then yes also to answer any questions that relate specifically to immigration and the bill itself The first question that um that relates to dcf's concerns regarding the the intention of the bill to create an obligation for dcf to provide over 18 guardianships or an over 18 custody situation that was not the intention of the bill um and in fact um in the drafting it was That didn't even occur to us. Um, it didn't occur to me. I can't actually speak for um um Attorney Wasserman, but um It's the the most common situation you would see um, which this bill is intended to provide for is um A youth who is about to turn 18 and so age out of the system Um Such that then there's no jurors a court would not have jurisdiction over the care and custody for that kid, whether that's a parentage um, or you know through a divorce or A guardianship and probate court so To protect those kids who might continue to need some care um It was envisioned that there could be an extended guardianship just between like Private parties a kinship placement for example, maybe a grandmother or a sister or an uncle um, and then through that extended guardianship up to age 21 This bill would allow for the child to request the special findings From the probate court. So just giving the probate court um both the jurisdiction to Allow for this extended guardianship Or even maybe for a new guardianship over for someone over 18 and to provide the requested special findings that's really the only substantive expansion that we intended in terms of like a new Program for kids over 18 Otherwise it was the intent is really just to um Allow for courts to provide the special findings that are requested By the non-citizen child who needs the specific special order in order to then apply for immigration status with with the federal agency Um, it again, it wasn't the intention that it would somehow create a new new obligation by DCS That wasn't that wasn't what we envisioned So happy to keep working with Rebecca Wasserman and BCS on that and Rebecca Turner as well Um Senator nickas questions those are really good ones. Um The in terms of the referral to services again, it wasn't envisioned that this was going to create some kind of obligation by programs to pay for these services um, I will say that I think with this past summer Um vermont just expanded diner doctor diner dr. Dinosaur coverage um to all vermont um pregnant vermonters and children regardless of status and I If that did not go into effect in october, I think it might be this july So to the extent that a child might be referred to a program that medicaid can pay for that non-citizen child should be eligible for that Really what those provisions are about the referrals for services The provisions about thinking about child's past situation It's really to ensure that the Court that is being asked To provide this these special findings or the order is really thinking about The care and custody of the child the needs of the child the well-being of the child because under federal immigration law When the child then takes that order and goes to apply for special immigrant juvenile status The immigration agency is wants to be assured that the child was in court in state court Because not just because they need findings for a green card but because The state court is the place um where the judge sitting there has the expertise about care and custody of children and that is in fact the underlying um The underlying situation that is allowing the child to even be in um in the courthouse under the jurisdiction of the court and so it's This this bill is actually modeled on main Special immigrant juvenile findings bill which is the most recently passed bill by any state and is is passed um at a time when The immigration agency was really cracking down on these special immigrant juvenile petitions. So What we attempted to do was To really make sure that it's clear in this bill that when the child is before a state court judge It is it's really about the care and custody and well-being of the child That's what the state court judges have jurisdiction over and expertise in um, and so that's what some of these provisions are about not to create some kind of Obligation that would require funding to provide So Just to make sure i'm understanding if The state court creates a guardianship over The child and the child is about to turn 18 when the child turns 18 They would be able to obtain those services either under medicaid or whatever you know, it could be in a in a home with a camp with a An uncle or an aunt or something of that nature is that that that scenario we're really talking about and then vermont medicaid might pay for Some of the services that were outlined and earlier in the bill that senator nick was asking about It might and i i'm not an expert on medicaid coverage and how far that coverage extends past the age of 18 um But in your in your hypothetical Chair sears that kid who was about to turn 18 who's already in a guardianship. That's precisely what the the um example that this Bill is trying to address so this kid has no status Um is about to turn 18 is in a guardianship running out of time otherwise under current law To get the special finding she needs to then be able to Get immigration status This bill would allow for the guardian to extend the guardianship And would allow the probate court to to issue the special findings um should they be substantiated by by the Child who's asking for them um, and then if the probate court Knew of some services that could um that that that the court could connect the child to that would be fine. Um It it was not indicate that the court is really considering the care custody and well-being of the child so dcf concerns um Could be addressed by making clear that they're not necessarily in dcs custody Absolutely, I think I think it would just need some clarifying lines that We could work with um attorney wasterman on Unless there was a criminal case they couldn't get I don't think they can get into dcf custody after age of 18 Under raise the age if there was a criminal case, but then that could affect their immigrant status. I would assume It might and that's a good question for dcf. My understanding is that There they don't have custody of kids over 18. They have these extended care agreements Um, but I I don't I don't want I'm not the expert about um dcf custody over 18 Or Erica Senator sirs. Yes Or did you ask me a question in terms of the raise the age? Yeah, if if you are correct that it would be under raise the age 18 age 18 and over that would be a way For custody to sort of come into dcf and I'm not sure the The immigration laws either by imagine that would impact that status. Yeah, that that might actually impact that the person's status to to remain That would be for the immigration attorney to to fight with Yeah, dhs about yeah, yeah Okay Any other questions for erin? Thank you so much for clearing some of that up. Does that help you senator nikka? Well, I think there are some risky parts here for gcf. So I think maybe erin and dcf can work can work these things out somehow to clarify some things And if that's he can help with that Um, perhaps during the town meeting week break we can find some time to put together some language that Helps with all of this and we can come back to this after town meeting But judge zoney is is our next witness on this subject and judge welcome Thank you. Good morning. Tom zoney chief superior judge The statute was originally enacted under title 14 section 3098 Effective on october 7th of 2020 and the new statute adds the number of definitions and additional components to it When I took a look at this if you go to page three line three There was an addition It says an at-risk non-citizen child against whom charges have been filed in the criminal division may file a petition for special immigration status in the court The court is defined as the family division or probate division in connection with the definition section that's been added My question on this provision that has been suggested Is why is it necessary and I ask that because it seems to potentially sow some confusion To mentioning that if someone's in the criminal division, they can file it in the court Well, is it the criminal court or is it the court that's actually defined in the statute? and the more fundamental question is Why is this section necessary because I don't I have not identified anything that says someone who has criminal charges can't file For this anyway, and so I'm not sure that subsection two under jurisdiction is necessary But if if it's found That it is necessary or believe that it is I would suggest getting rid of the last three words that say in the court That way it's there's no confusion about which court and it would clearly identify only the court Of the definition, which is the family division and the probate division The next part I wanted to talk about is still on page three Previously the statute as it's currently enacted says that if an order is requested from the court The new language on line 12 says if an at-risk non-citizen child petitions the court Thereby vesting the ability to petition in the non-citizen immigrant child I'm sorry. What page are you on page three? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm still on page two. Okay Page three line 12. Okay So it now the proposed language it says if an at-risk non-citizen child petitions And this raises the question of a child filing for his or her own order, which generally don't have that It would be for instance, if you're looking in the title 14 for guardianships For minors it says a parent or person interested in the welfare of a minor if DCF has custody it may be appropriate to say That or state agency having custody something like that to add So you don't have a situation where it appears that statutorily A child would be the one filing their own petition Yeah, I have a note here. It says that marriage federal law And that may be why again, we don't have Betsy Washington here to help us with it, but That's probably where the language came from It I would suggest if you could maybe move the words a little bit then If a petition is filed on behalf of a non-citizen child you can Something like that you might want to consider but again, it it should be clear who has the right to petition under our Guardianship statutes for minors. It's clear under our relief from abuse statutes It's clear that there has to be a parent or interested person for the minors or a limited exception for individuals age 16 or older to file their own The the next section I want to touch on we keep hearing about guardianship and and I agree when you look on page four At the bottom of page four it talks about extension of guardianship in line 20 The intent of that from what I understand from is Micah is for Individuals who are minors who currently have a guardianship and therefore that guardianship will be continued Well, that makes sense But I do question if you look at the first sentence It says at the request or consent of the at-risk non-citizen child presently under guardianship comma Or with the consent of the person under guardianship comma the court may extend an existing guardianship I may be missing something but I don't see the necessity for both of those clauses because aren't we only dealing with the non-citizen Child presently under guardianship who is actually the person under guardianship Which is the subject of the section and if that's correct. I don't know that that second clause is necessary Because this should only be covering the non-citizen child because that's all this set statute is referring to Does that make sense Make sense. Yeah So I again, I leave open that I might be missing something But it just seems to me that's referring to the same person Ie the ward under the guardianship that is already in existence for the minor And I assume that that would be a minor guardianship that has been entered under title 14 Which gets us to then section five on page five requesting an initial guardianship What I understand this section to seek is that it wants to make it clear That for individuals who are 18 to 21 They're not deprived of seeking the status for purposes of Going to court and getting the requisite order for use in federal proceedings It Mentioned the consent which makes sense obviously because this person is now an adult for purposes of making their own decisions But the court may appoint a guardian to assist them What does not appear clear? Is the procedure for that to occur? in other words While this statute says that a certain category of individuals is now eligible for a guardianship I cannot identify a Statutory framework that this simply fits in and you then follow the procedures in other words Is it it's not a guardianship for a minor because that under title 14 section 26 23 identifies people who are eligible guardianships as being under 18 And it would not seem to fit clearly within other provisions for individuals who may need guardianships and so my my question is Where does this fit into the guardianship scheme when a court gets this request a petition saying well We're filing under this section for a guardianship Where do we on the court plug it in to the statutes that exist for establishment of guardianships? And it doesn't seem to answer that question And so I think it could lead to some confusion because again, it there's no clear fit for guardianships and I don't know if Ms. Micah or others have considered that but it seems as though it's creating a guardianship Without the rules and statutes that tell us where it fits in But so that those were my my comments I do know That our probate and family oversight committees. I believe was oversight committees had indicated they were talking about getting together to potentially consider a A committee to look at this type of issue for coming up with Proposals and rules, but as of this time, I don't believe that had occurred Okay Okay, thank you judge any questions for judge zoney All right, thank you. Well, we've got a lot of work to do on this bill appears And hopefully folks can get together And come up with some Ideas and solutions I very much like to See this bill pass. I think it's important