BURLINGTON, Vt. — On April 20, Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF) officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee they support narrow language in S.12 to make explicit that records created during joint child-safety investigations with law enforcement are DCF records and remain available for the department’s administrative use.

Lindsay Baron, director of policy and planning for the Family Services Division at the Vermont Department for Children and Families, told the committee, “we're just seeking clarity, that through the process of engaging in joint investigations with law enforcement, that those records that are jointly produced and created, that those are our records.”

The clarification matters because investigations can produce two separate legal tracks. Baron said criminal cases may proceed through prosecution, while DCF’s role is an administrative, child-safety process that can produce decisions such as placing a name on the child-protection registry. “From the moment a report comes in, we are commencing in partnership with law enforcement and every activity of our investigation is happening hand in hand and in sync collaboratively with our law enforcement partners. And so we're creating the records together,” Baron said.

Stuart Sher, general counsel for the Vermont Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living (DAIL), echoed that the agencies are not seeking broader access to records they do not already receive. Instead, Sher said the departments want language that designates the concurrently created law-enforcement records as department records so they remain available for Adult Protective Services and DCF administrative purposes even if the law-enforcement record later becomes subject to sealing. “Simply to ensure that we have those and, and that they're designated as, as records of the department so that in the event that they are ultimately, sealed, those law enforcement records that we obtain concurrently with law enforcement through joint investigations, but they are preserved so that the department has access to those records for purposes of, its its administrative process through APS,” Sher said.

Committee members pressed for clarification on whether those jointly created records would be court records that could later be sealed. Baron and other witnesses stated the records are confidential and used for the departments’ administrative processes rather than as part of the criminal record. “You’re not asking to have an exception for use of sealed records. You’re saying that the records that you have are not ones that are sealed?” a committee member asked; Baron replied, “Yes. Correct,” and reiterated that the department treats the records as confidential but not court-sealed records.

Committee members also asked whether DCF has taken a position on whether records for youthful offenders would be sealed or expunged under the bill. Jennifer (last name not specified), identified in testimony as general counsel for DCF, said the department had not yet taken a position and would need to consult juvenile services staff. “We would need to talk internally about what whether we had a position on that,” she said, adding that the juvenile analyst and services director would need to weigh in and that the department would follow up.

Witnesses emphasized their request is limited. Baron described the department’s intent as narrowly scoped to avoid expanding access to records beyond what DCF already receives during joint investigations. Sher said the language being proposed matches that goal. A committee member acknowledged the language appears to reflect the departments’ objectives and recalled similar discussions in the prior biennium.

The committee recessed while staff arranged the next scheduled witness.

Votes at a glance: no formal motions or votes were taken during this panel.