[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6239088,"mediaKeyId","3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695","parentId",3339884,"title","House fixes carve‑out so child‑support nonpayment can be considered in contested adoptions but not in DCF termination cases","audioSeconds",276,"startMs",1297000,"endMs",1573000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695&start=1297&end=1573","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695/thumbnail_1297000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6239088/Vermont/House-fixes-carveout-so-childsupport-nonpayment-can-be-considered-in-contested-adoptions-but-not-in-DCF-termination-cases","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6239088-5348d8d2aa14115f202e9ab294061b57/orig.mp4?Expires=1771032631&Signature=jarLV0KEMkMxOzt2M3P4c8wDm~B~IP2fgH93v-~CSG1u65l-OzXk2yVSMYstZoDnzmunqkbCnZrxci6UodjRzCN8fHsfUHN-O61gOwgSULszv-uOyYkHZNxGFLAbs6mTlSWWTfuhXknmBJu1wxcx6KiEH15zzGzfWj6tfutxeOTQdoOTeykCUjvqm0ve~WQ2GT-HzKSLi~CMsxvCP21cn9sL-kXN6bbH-TqUtkWYpcKfGqDjS0aiamKICaRst8dKiu04hQUof~mnwWrYZmbbAYWRFM7brS3jJcy~PR14ogElZ1MaQgs8U7bsnCV2gQe2bxDoY5QweFQ4G9-JG4rlZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-17T02:16:00Z","article","Committee staff explained House amendments that restore language limiting how a parent's failure to pay child support may be used in contested adoption proceedings, while keeping a separate rule that DCF may not treat poverty or unpaid support as a reason to terminate parental rights in DCF termination proceedings.

Staff said the language being reinstated addresses an unintended drafting consequence from last year: family‑law practitioners noted that removing the provision inadvertently prevented courts in contested adoptions from considering a parent's child‑support history when evaluating which parent should have custody or whether a contested adoption should proceed. The House language re‑enacts the adoption provision so that child‑support history is available for family courts in contested custody or adoption disputes.

At the same time the House and DCF agreed language clarifying that in DCF termination‑of‑parental‑rights (TPR) cases child‑support nonpayment and poverty remain excluded from the factors DCF may consider. Committee staff described the change as a compromise requested by family‑law practitioners and DCF to align the statutes with their intended, distinct applications.

Committee members discussed the policy implications — one member said he found it troubling that poverty could ever lead to loss of parental rights but acknowledged the House language was a technical fix that restores practitioners’ intended access to child‑support history in contested private proceedings. The committee did not make further amendment at this session; staff said the House changes reflect agreement among DCF and family‑law stakeholders and would be included in the final bill text.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary 2025-05-16 - 9:05AM","oneSentenceSummary","Committee reviewed House language re‑inserting a child‑support consideration for contested adoption proceedings while preserving a prohibition on considering support arrears in Department for Children and Families termination‑of‑parental‑rights cases.","taxTitle","Judiciary, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",47267,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6239093,"Committee reviews House changes to firearms‑surrender working group membership and consultative list",301,933000,1234000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695&start=933&end=1234","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695/thumbnail_933000.jpg","/articles/6239093/Vermont/Committee-reviews-House-changes-to-firearmssurrender-working-group-membership-and-consultative-list","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6239093-3657fc8f24758480d6142a12e32e1131/orig.mp4?Expires=1771032630&Signature=WQWWSgHw~IM7Bj3WIM~MyEk5dNImNenP2YAXlojdb26A9ZvKduum1Y6wNIZmSMnCzcdwlgN-ul5rYPM0Q0FQt24l4W7SRlM2KUst3887o6yO-4yk61dvZe4UlOBGdPLyfB8MHRXfC0e3AsXesHBAin~x7yW8oxwiVjhoqMNmXI8w2w-xFZ2WrufitobiUIXNYhM3AZgquDe41QgaW2-cXF7WU2H4-FWQStNOHP4vtAszWocfFjl7IDQPMg6LnFmPQtYaur7rq6ParnAXlyG0ro6L--oQIt-CxwfR1B7nZjZkem6trd~EZg2APlihN~qsCYsZiZ9Tan-HugJgqirahA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee reviewed House edits to the bill’s firearms‑surrender compliance working group, which reduced formal membership and added a list of required consultees.

The working group was created to develop a uniform process for compliance with firearms surrender orders that already exist in law — for example, orders tied to relief‑from‑abuse or protection orders. Committee staff explained the House edits kept the group's overall purpose but reduced the number of voting members and instead required consultation with several stakeholders, including the commissioner of corrections, family‑law practitioners and a set of health‑care and mental‑health providers.

Several senators questioned whether moving mental‑health and health‑care entities from formal membership to a consultee role would reduce their influence. One senator said she was \"curious if the individuals that were taken from the list were consulted with,\" noting the importance of mental‑health providers in shaping procedures around firearms surrender. Staff responded that the statutory language requires consultation and that such lists are commonly phrased as inclusive rather than exclusive.

The bill also includes modest membership‑and‑compensation language for non‑governmental participants; staff noted the change may create a modest compensation obligation for invited non‑government members. Committee members asked staff to consider non‑exclusive phrasing (\"including but not limited to\") if they want to preserve flexibility in selecting additional stakeholders.

The committee did not take a final vote on membership language at this session; staff said the House amendments were largely technical but that the committee could propose language to restore specific membership if it preferred.","The House narrowed formal membership of a firearms‑surrender compliance working group and moved several stakeholders to a required‑consultation list; senators debated whether the change removes essential perspectives.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6239098,"House amendments add intervenor compensation and create victim‑notification review in judiciary bill",225,1751000,1976000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695&start=1751&end=1976","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695/thumbnail_1751000.jpg","/articles/6239098/Vermont/House-amendments-add-intervenor-compensation-and-create-victimnotification-review-in-judiciary-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6239098-fa68ccffe6940848440cf305f0f0e782/orig.mp4?Expires=1771032631&Signature=A~P6y2dWGG8mweTQLkaw~Smz5ByPjw9rx2Z3JOFcA6026LZO5uVJV9drGbvFT-WMz-EP~6eNpB~Z7WdkPXCMo8KZV8CYCbWUfGD1caiJPLX5ELVbkaEK-MGRbyJrH1QzgOJYaf0qM5HFDp-B~cYImpgqZE0GbVatMr9EYGSTNJRTwpy8L58vbbWZxaiVnI5nfyBAALOj9cd3OiBQtPuUS7c17R1Rh0PxuP8b5cYIdc5LNWm1whWMOLKKyP6a~24sh9X5b2rFtjYrk93VgTFWdBBcTwelDpiQPEcWxsfE6WqfnLi7QuSPkzjJHYvJn5JkhXTtpPp4lebSdMUlUA8o1w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee discussed House changes to the bill that expand who may apply to the Victim Compensation Board and that create opt‑in notice and a study of victim notification for earned‑time credits.

The House amendment preserves existing authority for victims to apply for compensation and adds 'intervenors' who assist not only law enforcement officers but also other protected professionals listed in statute — including firefighters, health‑care workers and emergency medical personnel — so that someone who intervenes to assist one of those professionals may apply to the Victim Compensation Board. Staff described the change as expanding the pool of people who can seek compensation without guaranteeing an award: applicants must still meet the board’s criteria.

Separately, the committee considered a House change that allows victims to opt in to receive notices when an offender earns time credit under the state's earned‑time program. Under current practice victims receive many automated notices; the House language permits a victim to receive the same earned‑time notifications so they can track changes that could affect an offender’s release date.

Committee members also reviewed a new task force, requested by the Center for Crime Victim Services, to study the state’s victim‑notification system. The task force’s scope, as described in the bill language, is to study accessibility, automated notification options, interagency information sharing and training needs and to report recommendations to the legislature by December of the year set in the bill.

Committee members and staff emphasized these changes are procedural and do not alter the underlying earned‑time rules or the Victim Compensation Board’s eligibility criteria beyond creating an applicant class. The committee noted the House changes came with stakeholder requests from the Center for Crime Victim Services and that outside witnesses had been involved in developing the language. The bill language and task‑force work will be subject to follow-up as the House text becomes final.","The committee reviewed House additions to the judiciary bill that (1) expand victim compensation eligibility to people who intervene to assist a broader set of protected professionals and (2) let victims opt into earned‑time notices and create a task force to study victim notification systems.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6239102,"Senate Judiciary debates timelines and added judicial review for S.87 detention procedures",3065,216000,3281000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695&start=216&end=3281","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3339884-7dd430f3cea9bf73ba0ba295a029f695/thumbnail_216000.jpg","/articles/6239102/Vermont/Senate-Judiciary-debates-timelines-and-added-judicial-review-for-S87-detention-procedures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6239102-2d247ab2dd1ade696245a02f353c54de/orig.mp4?Expires=1771032631&Signature=g8mbdzqhRcmqKWHCDI9AhgOAb9mea1AW2Y27nrwM5Hax9oQ130bypOGEw0EffDT6FLzJReks-mcX2EdR3SOz37Dy6SmbApg7OTR~JVhYFu3nlwECwAeyui0ubnUekg2PaUAOdvXguk2oi1z90f7LVEcv0X6tLDqCpHHC-i0wGdckGoq74sFqiIe0G0uRFIT7a4dYCIvwbjv7zLTBWaEVYbJLrdiBsASlEe-zLwkSQ6yj27l1WKuClaspZ0~3I5vENei-CFmqPbOs3-iW~C~OFOmVoj5MCzAlt6gUTVyJVugwXF0onkYD6~5DISjRFWvHt7oPUPQwS2ca321ZZ1CXpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Good morning. We are in Senate Judiciary. It's May 16. We're going to be voting on the changes the House made regarding expedition procedures. It's S.87,\" the committee chair said at the opening of the session.

The committee examined changes the House made to procedures in S.87 that preserve the bill's existing timeline — a 90‑day initial period with a 30‑day extension option — while adding explicit judicial review if an officer or agency seeks to extend detention beyond the statutory timeframe. Committee members debated whether the retained timeline was appropriate, compared it with other states and raised concerns about potential conflicts with federal law.

Why it matters: the bill governs time limits and review rights for people held under the statute at issue; preserving a clear initial period with a required judicial review for extensions affects both liberty interests and agency practice. Committee members said the House’s addition of judicial review addresses concerns raised in testimony without changing the 90‑day baseline.

Committee members described a wide range of state practices in their jurisdictional survey: \"There's some states that have a hundred and 80 days, some states that have no time at all. Others between 30 to 60 or 30 to 90 up front,\" one member said during debate. Another member raised a potential federal limit and asked what longer timeframes would mean under federal law, saying, \"it clearly says under the federal law that no person shall be held in custody under a telegraphic request, and I don't know what that means for more than 90 days.\" The chair and other senators said they were comfortable keeping the existing 90‑day initial period and relying on the added judicial review to guard against undue extensions.

The committee discussed the statute-number \"3020\" during the exchange when members questioned how the changes would interact with existing commitment procedures. Staff counsel briefed the committee on the context of the House changes and said the House-proposed judicial review would allow a judge to consider extension requests before an extended detention period began.

After further discussion the committee member who had earlier supported the Senate version but welcomed the House changes summarized the sentiment: \"I think we sent them a good bill, and they made it better. So I'm willing to concur with the House's rendition here.\" The committee then took a roll-call on a motion to concur; several named senators recorded yes or no votes and the chair announced they would report the matter to the floor.

The committee also noted that the final enacted language and any floor amendments in the House could affect timing and next steps; staff said the committee would obtain the final House text when it became available and bring it back if needed.

Reported action: the committee moved to concur with the House changes to S.87 and the chair announced it would be reported to the floor for further action.","The Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed changes the House made to S.87, which preserves a 90‑day initial detention timeline while adding a layer of judicial review for extensions; members discussed federal limits, state variations and voted to concur with the House amendment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House fixes carve‑out so child‑support nonpayment can be considered in contested adoptions but not in DCF termination cases

Committee reviews House changes to firearms‑surrender working group membership and consultative list

House amendments add intervenor compensation and create victim‑notification review in judiciary bill

Senate Judiciary debates timelines and added judicial review for S.87 detention procedures