[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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",[32,76,88],{"_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":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6189402,"mediaKeyId","5057392-c8f47e0d51f19111938542e2f927938e","parentId",5057392,"title","Department of Defense backs bills to ease moves, juvenile jurisdiction and military protective orders for military families","audioSeconds",213,"startMs",338165,"endMs",551829,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5057392-c8f47e0d51f19111938542e2f927938e&start=338&end=551","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5057392-c8f47e0d51f19111938542e2f927938e/thumbnail_338165.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6189402/Massachusetts/Department-of-Defense-backs-bills-to-ease-moves-juvenile-jurisdiction-and-military-protective-orders-for-military-families","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6189402-54afff00ce5075fc6243dea7367dc39d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770939785&Signature=N7zj7rvfAgdkBmFWu4ky~2rcKjJ8XCoD7zFPxYBm9mzkdhPEJuuVp2rvlTTqfkhVJTfWaVNUXrpqbHosIASzRIaltzWtutT4YWiiU9n2qA4Jk5a3ABruxL2MMoZzDfmRrYkG7OvEUb-JXiwTAVFvrSH9z9ybO1CbfKL9awRvh8r7THATe3Q2liygbKddrmsVL5gRuTx~66qNcoGzLWD9HZbwJM2hnbWCZ~RM0JtMj4mkCehyNz3tgeA5Uix~~no~G6vcNIwL3R9Rpwp58zkt~~FjKXkUctmWgSDVs3AqGcICSaUIUXdmzro65DOvBxJwxagFYbkk3UNnziw~W88XIg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Massachusetts Legislature","date","2025-06-24T00:00:00Z","article","Chairman Joe McGonigal, House chair of the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs, opened the committee’s first public hearing of the 2025–26 legislative session and recognized testimony supporting S.2503 and H.3886 from the Department of Defense and bill sponsors. \"The Department of Defense is grateful for the opportunity to support the policies reflected in S.2503 and H.3886,\" Melissa Willette, New England region liaison for the Department of Defense State Liaison Office, told the committee.

The bills would (1) improve education continuity for military-connected children who relocate, (2) provide a mechanism for concurrent juvenile jurisdiction on federal installations so certain juvenile matters can be adjudicated in state family courts, and (3) enable civilian courts to consider military protective orders as evidence in applications for temporary protection from abuse, Willette said. \"You recruit the service member, but you retain the family,\" she added.

Why it matters: committee testimony emphasized practical effects on military families who move frequently. Willette said about 3,600 active-duty children attend Massachusetts schools and cited a 2020 study that found 51 percent of active-duty families with a child in special education had trouble transferring individualized education plans (IEPs) after a move. Supporters told the committee that concurrent jurisdiction—already enacted in Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island—can allow juvenile cases that originate on installations to be handled in state juvenile courts that have child-focused resources and case management.

Proponents said the changes are voluntary for state courts. \"The local family court does not have to assume the case if they do not have the bandwidth,\" Willette said, describing the bills’ mechanism as creating an option rather than forcing a transfer.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about scope and safeguards. One member asked whether the change would ask the Department of Defense to \"give up\" law-enforcement authority on military property; Willette and Representative Stanley, the House sponsor, said the bills provide for concurrent jurisdiction—meaning federal and state authorities could both have jurisdiction and the family court would decide whether to assume a case. A committee member pressed whether such transfers would be case-by-case; Willette said the provision would create a mechanism for concurrent jurisdiction and that individual courts would determine whether to take specific cases.

The hearing also addressed military protective orders. Willette explained that issuance of a military protective order is a commander’s discretionary decision and \"there is no standard\" comparable to the civil court standard for temporary protection from abuse. For that reason, the bills seek to allow military protective orders to be admitted as evidence when a civilian temporary protection from abuse order is sought, to support coordinated responses to reports of violence.

Representative Stanley, one of the bill sponsors, framed the measures as building on Massachusetts’ previous work for military families, noting prior laws to speed school enrollment and assist military spouses with professional licensing. \"This legislation builds on our already strong record of support for our military families,\" Stanley said, and asked the committee for a favorable report.

The testimony included an offer to provide the committee with a memorandum from a former Secretary of the Army that supporters said recommended the jurisdictional change. A committee member requested that memo and a copy of the law references cited.

No formal committee action was recorded at the hearing; testimony and written comments were accepted until the committee takes up the bills.

Less-critical details: witnesses noted the bills use approaches adopted in other New England states, and supporters described the changes as intended to improve educational continuity, juvenile case outcomes and information-sharing between military and civilian authorities.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs - 6-24-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Chairman Joe McGonigal, House chair of the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs, opened the committee’s first public hearing of the 2025–26 legislative session and recognized testimony supporting S.2503 and H.3886 from the Department of Defense and bill sponsors.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature MA, Massachusetts","taxId",77682,"location","Massachusetts","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6189394,"Massachusetts Municipal Association urges state to pay veterans benefits directly, relieving municipal cash-flow burden",151,1365125,1517015,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5057392-c8f47e0d51f19111938542e2f927938e&start=1365&end=1517","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5057392-c8f47e0d51f19111938542e2f927938e/thumbnail_1365125.jpg","/articles/6189394/Massachusetts/Massachusetts-Municipal-Association-urges-state-to-pay-veterans-benefits-directly-relieving-municipal-cash-flow-burden","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6189394-1832f682ab380131ae3a3032b3786bcf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770939785&Signature=eRYxbuGD-P3bbfhJcsXwHaqcCffTga4FjplbqRaq4MyxUFC9YkYyRWPvvlkbWY5v-M9EGqdN6Pc40uPB8dFv3T2jVholvr6SUMX2y8qx-L-D47On0NHAaT7YeomhzB2xC2TmR28Ha7J1RBgpwwk4To3SDciGuscNChQFVqS41UOEzh4V-If9rJQI3SmNjzpzKnmKKN4AhmqibXh6M8~o9O~5Iliocpm4V3Oy3c2TJGoBxlPB5fUo3QtR1fBNdW8bW6Z-2qkwMkm6H7q2XvEX9nubpO27KL~eQXxz-5sxt61HEHKTdfz5FB3uxl3HR~d2ebj-rbbiUGHa1aCLaiYhLA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ally DiMatteo, legislative analyst for the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA), told the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs that municipalities currently pay 100 percent of veterans benefits and are later reimbursed by the Commonwealth at roughly a 75 percent rate. \"Cities and towns currently pay out 100% of the cost of benefits to veterans, and are later reimbursed by the state at a rate of approximately 75%,\" DiMatteo said, describing a quarterly reimbursement process that can leave municipalities responsible for obligated payments while waiting for reimbursement.

The MMA supports House Bill 3830 and Senate Bill 2456 and focused most of its three-minute testimony on H.3859, which would keep local veteran service officers (VSOs) as the front-line administrators of benefits but have the Commonwealth issue payments directly to veterans. DiMatteo said the change would preserve the VSOs’ role in eligibility determinations while removing municipalities as the financial intermediary and reducing unpredictability in municipal budgets.

Why it matters: DiMatteo said Massachusetts is unique among states in relying heavily on local municipal VSOs to administer benefits and that shifting payment responsibility to a single state appropriation would align veterans benefits with direct-payment practices used elsewhere in state government. She told the committee that there are approximately 351 municipalities and about 280 VSOs in the Commonwealth and said MMA had heard supportive feedback from member communities and their VSOs but would submit formal testimony listing municipal supporters.

Committee members asked for fiscal numbers. DiMatteo said she did not have a state total for FY25 benefits at hand but offered to follow up with a breakdown of municipalities that had contacted the MMA in support of the change.

No committee votes were taken at the close of the MMA testimony; written testimony was indicated as forthcoming.

Less-critical details: The MMA emphasized that the proposed change would not alter how VSOs determine eligibility, only who issues the payments.","Ally DiMatteo, legislative analyst for the Massachusetts Municipal Association, told the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs that municipalities currently front veterans benefit payments and are later reimbursed by the Commonwealth at about 75 percent.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6189397,"Melrose veterans advisory member urges COLA for local veteran benefits, and expanded benefits for Guard and Reserve killed on duty",136,1209465,1346275,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5057392-c8f47e0d51f19111938542e2f927938e&start=1209&end=1346","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5057392-c8f47e0d51f19111938542e2f927938e/thumbnail_1209465.jpg","/articles/6189397/Massachusetts/Melrose-veterans-advisory-member-urges-COLA-for-local-veteran-benefits-and-expanded-benefits-for-Guard-and-Reserve-killed-on-duty","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6189397-aa1cc34e157832cdb3f5effb9cf86869/orig.mp4?Expires=1770939785&Signature=KMmUIXkh2ynLqQho93ryitfLJMYDMSwi2Ynk1wV8taNvjwLfly2N304Tv4zsNDgNozpn8JjWK92jtK877aiomHITrtM4q-QG3l1PjLJKPPZ4J5xDd9svIF7-goSwyYnPYdkGHRcsuVJPtyAEnwIhN30ISyi3MruJv4RsxXH6WKteiz7YuCWOlc2EY9N4T5ycf~6C8vwJHzN3CQ7EkQNphPYAY8MHGRF-zhbxx2zNSbXErM3xJht43Cebie7ailH9NHYVQljrlNXZNjnsDKaB03dz-DUn9Ms4Z412qBwoIF6NShgwOc6nDwMtPxdA8X18xIUa6MPQldyZlOAQSchhCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","James \"Jim\" King, a member of the Melrose Veterans Advisory Board and a Vietnam veteran, testified in favor of House Bill 3863 (Senate 2480) asking the committee to authorize a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for municipal veterans benefits. \"Since 02/2020, inflation has run 20.9% in the Boston Metro Area leading into veterans benefits at that level,\" King told the committee, urging a COLA to maintain benefit purchasing power.

King also urged support for House Bill 3864 (Senate 2479), which would extend benefits to members of the National Guard and Reserve killed on active duty by aligning eligibility with benefits described in Chapter 32, Section 100A for public safety officers, he said. \"The Guard and the Reserve today is not the Guard and Reserve that I grew up with. They are at the forefront of our security right now,\" King said.

Why it matters: King framed both measures as adjustments that would keep municipal veterans benefits meaningful and to recognize the changing role of Guard and Reserve troops. He asked the committee to report the bills out of committee.

Questions from the committee were limited and no formal fiscal estimates were provided during the hearing. King identified the statutory references he was asking the legislature to change: municipal veterans benefits under Chapter 59, Section 5 and public safety survivor benefits under Chapter 32, Section 100A.

No committee action or votes were taken at the conclusion of the witness’s testimony.

Less-critical details: King described local veteran-advisory responsibilities and said towns carry obligations for living veterans; he urged repeal or modification of existing limitations so benefits keep pace with local cost increases.","A Melrose Veterans Advisory Board member told the Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs that veterans benefits paid by municipalities should include a cost-of-living adjustment tied to local inflation and that Guard and Reserve members killed on active duty should receive death benefits comparable to certain public safety officers.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Department of Defense backs bills to ease moves, juvenile jurisdiction and military protective orders for military families

Massachusetts Municipal Association urges state to pay veterans benefits directly, relieving municipal cash-flow burden

Melrose veterans advisory member urges COLA for local veteran benefits, and expanded benefits for Guard and Reserve killed on duty