House Human Services advances working group to study mandatory child‑abuse reporting; members debate scope and supports

The House Human Services Committee on Thursday reviewed a draft of SP39 that would create an interagency working group to examine Vermont’s mandatory child‑abuse reporting laws and identify alternatives, supports and statutory clarifications.

Michelle Childs of the Office of Legislative Counsel walked members through the amendment and highlighted new language directing the group to “consider what services and strategies may be employed prior to any report of suspected abuse or neglect for the purpose of providing assistance to families.” The draft also tasks the group with assessing statutory definitions and the reporting process under 4912 and 4913, penalties and exemptions, and “identifying alternatives to reporting suspected child abuse or neglect when such alternatives are in the best interest of the child,” Childs said.

Members cited a recently circulated national data update — provided by a witness from the Parent Child Center Network and shared with the committee by a staff member — showing Vermont is a national outlier in reports per thousand residents. “We are way high on the — I mean, like off the charts high — on the reports per thousand in the population,” one member said, and several members said that statistic helps explain why the committee has opened this review.

Lawyers and committee members debated how much context the bill should include. Several said the committee should add a short findings section explaining why it is convening the working group (for example, the unusually high reporting rate and gaps in supportive services) so the group's charge will be clear to members and to the public. Childs said she could draft brief findings language and circulate it after members review the full amendment.

The draft revises membership and consultation lists: it reduces Department for Children and Families (DCF) representation from two seats to one, adds a deputy defender general from the Juvenile Defenders Office, includes a certified law‑enforcement officer with SIU experience, and creates two lived‑experience seats — one appointed by the Child, Youth and Family Advisory Council and a second appointed by the Parent Representation Center. Members asked that the lived‑experience representatives be listed first on the membership roster.

Members also clarified process questions: the working group may, at its discretion, hold public hearings and take testimony; the committee agreed to add a statutory ‘‘catch‑all’’ for consulting with others as necessary and to ask DCF to post meeting notices, schedules and minutes on its website to increase transparency.

Timing for the group's reporting was set in the draft: an interim presentation on or before April 1 of next year and a final report due October 1. Childs said the earlier interim date helps align legislative drafting with the biennium calendar so any bill requests are ready when the session starts.

No formal vote was taken; members assigned staff follow‑ups. Committee staff (Esme) was asked to pull a small set of data points for the findings and to deliver them to Childs for inclusion in a revised draft.

The committee’s discussion focused on balancing two goals: ensuring mandatory reporting captures serious cases that require protective intervention, while identifying supports and alternatives that can help families before an incident escalates to a formal report. The working group, if created as drafted, would be charged to weigh those tradeoffs and recommend statutory or administrative changes.

Next steps: staff will circulate a revised draft with proposed findings and the membership reordering; the committee will revisit the amendment for further edits and potential markup.