SmartTranscript of House Judiciary - 2025-02-12 - 10:20 AM

[Chair Martin LaLonde]: Welcome back to committee. Next up will be Karen, if you're ready. Thank you. Please identify yourself and proceed. [Kim McManus]: Okay. [Karen Vastine]: Good morning, everybody. It looks like I'm speaking to a small room here, but, I am Karen Vastine and I am the chair of the Council for Equitable Youth Justice. You all had, Judge Davenport and me, in front of your committee earlier this session to describe what our role is with respect to juvenile justice reform. So just a quick reminder for the record, the Council for Equitable Youth Justice is established through, the Federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which just turned fifty last year. And, the Council for Equitable Youth Justice is Vermont's state advisory group, which is one of the many requirements of, of the federal act. And we are comprised of volunteers, but are staffed by the Department for Children and Families, which which is where the title two grant monies from the Department of Justice flow through. So that's who I am, and thanks for having us be a part of this conversation. We were thrilled to see h two, come out so quickly and have such a low number as the council fully supports, raising the minimum age of juvenile court jurisdiction to twelve. The council has been focused on juvenile court jurisdiction for several decades now, and this is an enormous priority for us. So we were excited to see that in the bill, and we are in full support. So I'm just gonna walk through the bill as it is now with each section and just make a few comments. So with respect to section two, which would, allow for a longer, period of time for, older youth to remain on, DCF probation, The council's position is that, you know, we appreciate the we fully appreciate the need for youth to finish treatment. However, it'll be important to note that this will mean that youth are in the system longer. As we've talked about for many years now with respect to, you know, appropriate and evidence based services for youth who are engaging in the juvenile justice system, it's always important to attend to dosing, meaning that youth who youth risks and needs define the length of time and the level of care that they receive. And so it's just important to point out that there can be negative consequences, when youth remain in the system longer than necessary. So that's the only caution that we wanted to put out there, but, otherwise, we're in support. This is something that you see in other states as well, and it's critical that, that youth have a chance to finish their treatment, before exiting care. And then with respect to sections, three through nine, regarding the, the delay of, implementation of raise the age and the addition of nineteen year olds to the system. As I mentioned, you know, juvenile court jurisdiction slash raising the age has been a priority for the council for decades. And while we wish that the delay weren't so long, we do appreciate why the addition of nineteen year olds to family court is being postponed. We believe that it is important for the system to continue to make progress towards completing this step of the law. And we, believe that the reporting structure currently in place, has been a helpful way for, all of us who are, you know, watching this, to be able to monitor the changes that are being made in the system. So as such, we believe that DCF should continue to report on their progress towards this goal. And then I understand from yesterday's testimony that sections ten through twelve have been identified as problematic, so I'm not going to comment on those. And then with respect to section thirteen, we're in support of whatever would make the process smooth. And as we know, you see better outcomes when youth are able to be served quicker and have a quicker response from the system. And so the quicker the process, the better the outcome. So we are in support of that as well. So that's all I have. I don't know if you all have any questions. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Anyone have any questions? [Speaker 3 ]: Anyone? One second, Karen. [Kim McManus]: It's all good. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: We're We're all set. Thank you very much. Have a nice day. Thank you. [Karen Vastine]: Yeah. Thanks for having us here. [Chair Martin LaLonde]: Next up, Kim, please. [Kim McManus]: Good morning, everyone. Good morning, [Speaker 3 ]: Pam. Good [Kim McManus]: to see you. For the record, my name is Kim McManus. I'm with the Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. Thank you for having us in to discuss your revised draft. Watching testimony from yesterday, it seemed like it would be easiest just to go section by section. I did hear the chair say something as I walked in, or as when judge Sonia was testifying essentially that, like what was it that there's a one of the matters has been taken off for consideration, and I'm not sure which one that is. So before I talk in a very long winded way, if you could tell me that section. Yeah. That was the section that, parent expedited. To twelve. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. It's ten through twelve, basically. Okay. [Kim McManus]: Great. So I will touch on that, but just talking about, like, as you move forward, some things to think about. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. I think it would be great to hear from Okay. State attorney's perspective if you have ideas. We know that this is being talked about by a a committee that was asked by this body to to figure this out, but certainly hearing your [Kim McManus]: Great. Okay. I'm just I didn't wanna touch on something if already you're like, that's off. We don't want yeah. You'd be like, move along. Okay. So section by section. Just to reiterate, section one, the original part of h two, raising the minimum age from ten to twelve. Our department continues to support that. We have no issue on that as we had testified previously. Section two, the extension jurisdiction on the upper end of the spectrum. We absolutely appreciate that concept of having more time to work with this older subset of juveniles. We would echo BCF's concern, that the extension of age benefits children who are engaging, with the system, but not necessarily addressing those who, are failing to engage. Like, those problems would just spin for another year. So we we we have no issue with the age extending, but we don't think it resolves any of the issues we raised as far as it gives more time before someone ages out, but it doesn't address how someone would potentially age out. So we're not for or against it. We're neutral. Section three through nine, everything addressing raise the age, pushing that back to twenty twenty seven. We really appreciate, that, our department's position remains that we think Phase two should be repealed. We understand that's not, an option right now, and and that's fine. So we really appreciate you acknowledging the problems that exist currently and that those need to be figured out before adding nineteen year olds. And so pushing it out two and a half years to July twenty twenty seven. Again, our first choice from do you repeal? But if we can't have that, we definitely support pushing it out to twenty twenty seven. [Speaker 5 ]: I think you're asking. [Speaker 3 ]: Yes, sir. [Speaker 5 ]: Kim, so I just the the thing that I'm curious about is if we could I know we don't none of us have a personal ball. But if raise to age is implemented April first as intended, how do you imagine that playing out in the system? Like, what what what should we expect to see as legislators, and what should our constituents expect to see? [Kim McManus]: Well, I believe it would be similar to when eighteen year olds were added that on that date, anything occurring on or after that date for nineteen year olds will be filed in family division. But then also anyone who's already existing, there's going to be a lot of requests to move cases from criminal into family division of those nineteen year olds. [Speaker 3 ]: So you just imagine, like, [Speaker 5 ]: a flurry of requests being filed by attorneys. DCF workloads are obviously gonna be increasing dramatically. [Kim McManus]: Yes. It's I mean, it it would yeah. All the all the things to yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: System is just gonna start compounding. Right? Like, you would imagine. Like, again, like, none of us have a crystal ball, but if we're looking to forecast what implementation would look like if April first you know, if we don't come to agreement here Mhmm. And the governor you know, if there if there is not a broader appeal. [Kim McManus]: Yeah. There'd be a significant amount of work. And, again, depending on how many of those nineteen year olds are in the various counties, there would be that workload [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. [Kim McManus]: On or right after at your cohorts. [Speaker 5 ]: Yep. Okay. Sure. [Speaker 3 ]: Thank you. [Kim McManus]: Yes. And can I ask [Speaker 6 ]: Go ahead? [Speaker 4 ]: I you said very clearly that it's the department's stance that, phase two should be repealed. [Kim McManus]: Of raise the age. Of raise the age. Correct. [Speaker 4 ]: So nineteen year olds. Correct. Why? I mean, I we've heard why it should be, but I don't know if we've heard from state's attorneys the exact why. [Kim McManus]: Well, primarily, because of the issues we see with the eighteen year olds, we do not want to replicate that with nineteen year olds. As we cited in our testimony and in contradiction contradiction to some other testimony, we do not see a number of the felony offenses that are starting in family court as low level offenses. They're serious offenses. And now we're adding another age group that are being treated in family court. And while we appreciate what's been discussed in the past as far as, you know, where young adults are in their prefrontal cortex and their decision making, you know, the difference between eighteen, nineteen year old, twenty, twenty one year old. I know there needs to be lines drawn, and we're not necessarily saying where we don't necessarily know, but we know there needs to be a line somewhere. So if the nineteen year old when are we gonna then add the twenty year olds soon, the twenty one year olds? And we would just have a significant concern. Now I do appreciate that, again, granting more time for those nineteen year olds. You're trying to address that issue of if we added nineteen year olds, you would have more time to work. Totally appreciate that. The biggest issue and it was towards the end of my presentation, but I'm gonna just bring it up front, is the ability to hold these individuals, to have some sort of backstop, some sort of custody. Like, please do not add nineteen year olds into the mix, having us extending them up to, twenty, twenty one and a half and not having any ability to account for the behavior. We just it's just a frustration, and we're just going round and round. And when I heard, defender Paul speak of this yesterday, and I know you all appreciate whatever the state's attorneys and senator general agree, and we agree on this. If we could figure out the custody piece, not only clarifying DCF's ability to take these young adults who are being defined as children, these so these older children who are between eighteen and twenty one, and we are able to create that backstop custody, and that would potentially address a number of our concerns that actually not only the if there's an immediate safety risk, but if whatever's keeping this young adult from complying with juvenile probation, from getting the rehabilitation needed, that some temporary or short term custody may be a piece of that puzzle, right? And so having that be real, right, potentially could allay some of our concerns. And so that's why we appreciate pushing this out two years. We appreciate the idea if we can get a real backstop and see how that's working with the eighteen year olds coming in who are then on probation nineteen, twenty. Like, if we're seeing that address our public safety concerns and seeing real rehabilitation, and seeing people finish juvenile probation successfully, we may have a different position about nineteen year olds in two years. But as of right now, previous, even to this draft, it's like, right now, the draft doesn't address those concerns for us in a way that we could say we'll be comfortable in two years. So I'm not saying we could never change our minds, but as of today. [Speaker 4 ]: Okay. It's that's helpful to hear, and it's it's just hard for me to understand since sometimes all of, you you know, the talk of her heel when obviously the brain science hasn't changed. So the reasons that all of the reasons that the law passed seven years ago or whatever it was still exist. And the justification for the change still exists. So then hearing so many people within the system saying it's it we need to repeal. Repeal is the way to go is confusing to me. And it it points to problems in the system, not problems with the original decision. And I and I, like you, don't see us fixing the problems within the system, and that's frustrating. So I feel some frustration as well. And I'm just wondering how as as representative Dolan was saying earlier, are we are we being asked to design a system for the exceptions or or or the or the general truth the general population? And for, you know, nineteen year olds who commit retail theft for, you know, like, we're gonna we're just gonna throw away the chance for them to be you know, I mean, hopefully, that would go through diversion, but, like, I just I don't know how we are how to make sense of legislating for the worst case scenario only. That's what it feels like we're being asked to do, and I don't know how to do that, especially without data. Like, how many night how many eighteen year olds who've come into the juvenile system? How many are we talking about who are these these really difficult cases? Is it the majority? [Kim McManus]: I would not be able to definitively answer that today. I guess what I would say is ideally, and I don't wanna tell you your job, but ideally, we're legislating to capture as many of the scenarios as we can. And so I think that by creating a structure that creates accountability for those who are struggling to engage, that you're going to what's the word? I don't think by creating that and being able to capture that subset, even if it's a small subset, it's an important subset. And I, again, can't help but go back to in my practice, there are a number of sexual assault types that fall into direct file into family division, and those are our, you know, first year college students. And so if so even if that is one or two or three, young adults who are bending that type of offense, I would hope that the legislation is going to wrap around and not let those individuals age out of juvenile. And, again, there's other mechanisms to move it back and forth, and we can get into that. But I don't think by doing that, you're gonna over legislate the retail theft. Like, I think there's ways and even in this draft, right, when considering that transfer, the the judge is not only looking at the permission violation, but is looking at the underlying offense. Right? So that retail theft, even if they're struggling and, you know, they're not necessarily going to be [Speaker 4 ]: No. But they're in the criminal system then. And they're [Kim McManus]: No. No. Because the judge would have to transfer them. So I'm saying, like, if you you write a you know, if you're considering if the underlying offense is always a consideration and then the whatever the probation violations are, that's going I that's going to prevent sort of that over over action, over penalizing, over criminalizing Yeah. Those offenses because that's always going to be a factor. Right? Children's going to look very differently at a young adult who has multiple retail thefts and is not going to counseling or not signing up for work versus a young adult who it's a sexual assault through, you know, roofing someone that falls in, that's not or the big, eleven plus three, and then, is not going to their sex offender treatment. Right? That's a very different consideration. So how that's worded, right, is going to level that out and not create a larger Yeah. Sense. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. And I just wanna say about the sexual assault and, you know, the that keeps getting used as an example, and I think it's important to remember that the criminal statutes don't handle sexual assault all that well necessarily and that victims often feel less inclined to participate in a criminal process and are gonna feel less of a sense of justice at the end of that process and are often revoptimized. And that may not be true in a probation or restorative process, just to put that out there, especially because that is a frequently used example. [Kim McManus]: And I don't mean to overuse it, but as a intimate partner violence prosecutor, I can just tell you firsthand telling a a teenager or young adult who's been a victim of a sexual assault by someone near their age and then telling them that it's going to juvenile court, that's general I've I've never met anyone who isn't wildly offended by that. I do I fully appreciate that there's no often, I shouldn't say no. Often, the outcomes are are difficult no matter what, but I can absolutely tell you that I've sat across from many individuals who cannot believe that that this would not be in criminal court or that it would take multiple groups to to get there. So oops. Sorry. [Speaker 3 ]: Okay. [Kim McManus]: Follow-up on that. [Member Angela Arsenault]: I appreciate Artisan's point of that piece of there's no guarantee that if it was in criminal court that there would be accountability or follow-up. So I just wanna put that out there. Like, we're talking about that there isn't the account accountability in juvenile system, but there's also not the account guarantee in the criminal system. No guarantees. Absolutely. And then the other thing that I'm hearing is with the sexual assault or domestic violence pieces, the concern that there's not the opportunity to transfer. And I'm we're hearing a testimony earlier, but that's a really important tool is being able to transfer. So you have a case in front of you and you can be like, well, this seems high risk. We want to have it go to criminal court. Domestic violence [Kim McManus]: or [Member Angela Arsenault]: the domestic assault types of crimes are in the misdemeanor category, so wouldn't be so I'm just curious. Your thought, if we took that time out but allowed misdemeanors to go through for nineteen year olds, like, what would the thought be on that? [Kim McManus]: I mean, it'd be interesting I wouldn't on the fly. I want I can't speak to the department on whether that would change their phase two position. I think we would very much appreciate looking at the crimes that that do start in family court for eighteen year olds. And then if we moved on to nineteen year olds, if part of that addition of nineteen year olds was doing another analysis of, you know, whether there's a a five truncation of which goes where depending on the the prime type, I mean, we would wanna we would be interested in that conversation. Could I just say that gets [Member Angela Arsenault]: to that piece that Brevard Snow was talking about of creating a system for those exceptions versus, yeah, there's this group of folks who are committing misdemeanors. Maybe aren't these sexual assault violent crimes, you know, but can we have a path for them? And so just as we're talking about it, I'm just seeing that maybe that's a opportunity that we wanna explore. I I think that's definitely an area where where there could be some real movement. [Speaker 5 ]: I just I have a quick one. And you might be getting to this, so if you're gonna get to it in your testimony, feel free to just say, you know, we're gonna get there. Yesterday so it's related but separate, consideration. Yesterday, DCF testified on the, conditional plead guilty plea to move from criminal to the legal tender status. I don't know if you're gonna touch on that, but I'm just curious about your in the department's thoughts on that. [Kim McManus]: So I was not going to touch on it deeply, and I believe, today, because attorney Jones, I believe, referenced that there is some central legislation about, WIO and maybe going suggesting to go back to the former process of the conditional plea. What I can say today from from our perspective is that is the cleaner, easier version. And and as far as the up and down, back and forth, and who has jurisdiction, and are we trying things twice, that does eliminate a bunch of those issues. [Speaker 3 ]: Thank you. [Kim McManus]: But I think, I would prefer, when we when the y o, if that When the trial gets Yes. I'd love to then dig into it because I just don't wanna get [Speaker 3 ]: Totally fine. [Kim McManus]: Perspective today. But, yeah, we do see a lot of positives from our perspective on that. [Speaker 3 ]: Yep. Thank you. [Kim McManus]: So moving into section ten and twelve, again, knowing that this I I just wanted to raise some of the issues that we saw and that you've already heard, some of them. We, again, absolutely appreciate that we feel that this committee heard our concerns, with this draft and trying to address this issue of complying with juvenile probation, and controlling the age out issue by creating some accountability provisions that will either motivate the young adult or to comply with juvenile probation or cause the person to lose the benefit of the family division. So we absolutely saw what the committee you know? Absolutely. And and, again, we really, really appreciate it. And so as far as so we think there's a few issues. No surprise. The if and when we can get to some language that causes this sort of kick out mechanism of of losing your opportunity to be in juvenile jurisdiction. Obviously, that notice as you wrote it in section ten and eleven, giving the juvenile that notice of, like, what could happen with this. Like, obviously, we absolutely agree with that. The actual transferring, though, we do have concerns with how it's written. One, we wanna address that this current suggestion does not address the concern that we raise about, these young adults not showing up to their hearing. So, again, they need to show up for that probation violation. If the expedited hearing takes place at the same time, they need to be there. If it's being scheduled a week or two out, they need to be there. The the the hearing can't happen without them. So, again, if somebody knows if I don't show, nothing's gonna happen. The case isn't gonna be able to move over to criminal court. So we just wanted to point that out. [Speaker 3 ]: Can I ask a question? And and you I think you were just hitting on it right before I came back in. But doesn't the, issue custody help us in that area? That Absolutely. [Kim McManus]: Yes. So [Speaker 3 ]: That seems to be the approach rather than this transfer approach. [Kim McManus]: Absolutely. The custody and, you know, making having whatever clarity is needed for family divisions, superior court judges being able to issue a a warrant, and that the individual could be held until they can show up at court. Absolutely. So that that's what we wanted to point out as a as a fix to the to the no show. [Speaker 3 ]: You have any language that you can help on that issue working with our legislative council? [Kim McManus]: I would be happy to try. I don't have it. [Speaker 3 ]: No. No. [Kim McManus]: Right here? I actually [Speaker 3 ]: need to try. [Kim McManus]: Okay. On the fly? [Speaker 3 ]: But I think that, you know, we'll we'll, ask our legislative council to pursue this and, if he needs to touch base with some folks to [Kim McManus]: Absolutely. Help do it. So We would really we would appreciate that. So the and I won't spend much time on this because I think you all are scratching out the current draft of the transfer. We don't need to get into the double jeopardy issue. What we wanted to raise you all just for future consideration is having a prosecutor build and create their case and family division and then having to re try their case in criminal court. There's a workload issue aside from that. And then but we did just wanna point out the the victim issue. So [Speaker 3 ]: That's why doubling the rationale for not having double jeopardy. It's it's actually the the having two trials. Yeah. So so yeah. That we [Kim McManus]: You've heard that loud and clear. You're I do not need to beat that horse. But we yeah. We just and we did just want the victim piece to be perfect. You know, we don't want multiple preps testifying. [Speaker 3 ]: That's what yeah. [Kim McManus]: And if any future drafts are using the unreasonable risk to public safety, we would want that further defined. [Speaker 3 ]: Let me let me ask back up on the custody issue. I mean, if we are providing if we figure out the custody issue that eighteen year olds can be taken into custody by DCF, do we have to get into that at all? Or [Kim McManus]: Possibly not. No. If we're if we're [Speaker 3 ]: not gonna tell them how to exercise their custody. They already do that for under eighteen. It would just be extending it, like, eighteen year olds. Or or is there something we would you think we should do? [Kim McManus]: No. I think the the extending it and then, again, this was discussed yesterday. The you know, do they have a place to take them? [Speaker 6 ]: Right. [Speaker 3 ]: Just [Kim McManus]: You know, right, those two pieces. And so if that backs up the mechanism is there to then work with that individual and having them go up to court and having then the the consequence of custody until compliance, then the judge is involved in in that, like, how long that's gonna happen? Then, no. I don't think we need to get into this this language. [Speaker 3 ]: So, I mean, the concept again would be the same kind of whatever DCF is able to do with the under eighteen, allowing that to occur for the eighteen year olds. It's what we're after. It's not something different like [Kim McManus]: No. Because, again, the if they're still under the umbrella of this is juror juvenile jurisdiction, Right? The whole purpose is rehabilitation. So, yeah, that it would be pretty similar. It would just be the mechanisms, right, of eighteen, nineteen, twenty year olds and then an appropriate place for them and that's secure that they can actually they will stay in and can't leave. No. But to your point, if that's all being scratched out, then a lot of my other comments are irrelevant. Always the nice part about being lost. And then the only would there was a I think, attorney Jones pointed out the the dates on the back. So I think that was already pointed out. And then and then again, I guess, if if the if the committee is focusing more than on the the custody and being able to get our hands wrapped around these individuals and and run away from the transfer idea. If any sort of transferring idea percolates again, we would just ask that the effective date, currently, those sections were under that twenty twenty seven. We would just ask that those move forward because, again, to work with our current population, see how that works [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. [Kim McManus]: Before, the nineteen year olds came in at twenty twenty seven. Okay. But it sounds like you're moving away. [Speaker 5 ]: Any other questions? K. [Speaker 3 ]: Not seeing any. I think we'll probably have another version of this next week, and we'll give people an opportunity to weigh in then as well. [Kim McManus]: Thank you. Thank [Speaker 3 ]: you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. [Kim McManus]: To Nate. I've got to be around next week. Before you go, [Speaker 3 ]: I think coach has a [Kim McManus]: Oh, sorry. [Speaker 3 ]: No. That's alright. Just a quick question. [Coach Christie]: You know, we get a general consensus or thought from the state's attorneys, and I know how unequal or even they can be from time to time. Can we get an accurate, count and consideration from each state's attorney on their position before we push this thing over the mountain top. [Kim McManus]: Specifically for the raise the age phase two section? I can ask. The state's attorneys are not beholden. No. No. No. [Speaker 3 ]: I me. [Kim McManus]: I I didn't wish, but I can absolutely ask. [Coach Christie]: There are representatives, and we represent them. [Kim McManus]: Absolutely. [Coach Christie]: And, you know, I I'll call mine. I I'm not afraid to do that, and he knows that. [Speaker 3 ]: And I'm not afraid to call any of the [Coach Christie]: other ones either, but I thought that's what you guys so, you know, if you would, we'd appreciate it. Not to be rude. [Kim McManus]: No. And I will send out that ask, and then the state's attorneys who will respond. I can and allow me to report out on that. I I can. Mhmm. But as a reminder, we did discuss it as a department, and our executive committee, based on that input, has taken the position on Raise the Age. But I I can absolutely ask for the individuals. [Coach Christie]: Thank you. [Kim McManus]: Absolutely. Thank you so much. [Speaker 3 ]: You have a question? I do. [Speaker 6 ]: I guess, John, that was okay. [Speaker 3 ]: So It's just a time. [Speaker 6 ]: And and it's strange. I was just trying to think outside of the box a little bit, and I was for one jurisdiction, the other ping pong effect. Is there any way to, like, bifurcate the court so that, like, the adult court could have super it's similar, you know, similar to, like, diversion. You know, if somebody goes into diversion, family court could be incomplete. And if you fail out, you're still under the authority of the original court. But if you complete, it's gone. Just like, say, ceiling. That makes sense? [Speaker 3 ]: Is that why you owe? That means full offenders? It's just I mean, kind of. Yeah. [Speaker 6 ]: Kind of. But it it's it's gonna be over sought by two courts with, like, the jurisdiction over the one person. I don't I guess. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. I'm just I'm just wondering. How would that be [Speaker 5 ]: different? [Speaker 6 ]: Well, they would still have the potential, all the advantages of going through the whole PCF family court system. And I understand that there's also a resource problem there, but it allow you to continue with someone who was one of the top ones in their core without having the ping pong. [Kim McManus]: Well, to that point, I don't I don't think I [Speaker 3 ]: I would I [Speaker 6 ]: would I [Kim McManus]: definitely want judge Sone to to weigh on this, and I would not speak for him. But I I think an important thing that you're you're picking at, and it it came to me yesterday listening to testimony as well, you know, the simplification of these transfer hearings and sort of that that gatekeeping of where things go, But that's a big part of this. And then having that sooner, and I know I believe, to kinda general Paul had said that potentially a suggestion that might be coming is that that transfer hearing, you know, every everything, all the offenses going, into family court and then transferring out. And this will not surprise you, but the state's attorney brain, I heard that, and I was like, interesting. I was like, or we could start everything in criminal and then by you know, switch it out. So I think that is something to just think more about. But I it it's hard to have dual jurisdiction unless you have that sort of conditional plea and then it's sent over, you know, then there's something there, which is the old YO. [Speaker 6 ]: It could theoretically, in my mind, be handled by the same judge. You know what I mean? Well [Kim McManus]: Well, then you're sort of maybe creating sort of a separate, like young adult court. [Speaker 3 ]: So so and and the study the task force study with whatever we call it, that's supposed to report in December twenty twenty five is specifically looking at the concept of starting everything in Family Court with the transfers from there. So so that's that's being looked at. Maybe they can if you wanna talk to Zoe about your idea and and Marshall and further, you know, that could be part of what they look at. But I think we have another question. But Just [Speaker 5 ]: because we opened the door to this. [Speaker 3 ]: Can you just I'm right. I just I [Speaker 5 ]: am I'm very curious because I I just don't understand the rationale. So if one of the concerns is the confidentiality thing or where it sits, especially for a juvenile case, why would you not just have it all start in the confidential family court and then dole it out if it goes criminal or not? Like, is the concern that if it starts in the family court, it'll stay in the family court? [Kim McManus]: But I just don't Oh, oh, from our [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. Like, well, I like [Kim McManus]: I see. Yeah. Well and and I I don't want to get out on my skis about this idea because I don't know all all the pieces of it. Like, I heard it mentioned yesterday, and I was like, oh. So I I don't wanna go into that. From a public safety perspective, there's a few things. One, going into family court. Again, we have family court conditions of release versus criminal court conditions of release. And again, how we can respond if those conditions are being violated, that's one piece. The confidentiality piece for family court, that means folks cannot know that so and so has been charged with x. And it might be important for the public to know, that nineteen year old, eighteen year old Jo Jones has been charged with [Member Angela Arsenault]: this very serious offense [Speaker 3 ]: and [Kim McManus]: is maybe on conditions of release and living next door to you. Mhmm. You might wanna know that depending on the offense, not all offenses, right, but certain offenses. It might be very important. And again, if there's no sort of custody piece, there are some many of those offenses where you may not want that person in the public, potentially. There's a lot of those are high barriers. But if all cases, including the big eleven plus three, are starting in family, I mean, there's it's depending on when that transfer hearings happen. Like, there's so many [Speaker 6 ]: Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: There's a lot too [Speaker 3 ]: that we do. [Kim McManus]: Of, like, you know, if we're talking a day, the day it's filed, that's different from three months later. Right? [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. That's very helpful. Thank you. I have another question too. Oh, shit. Sorry. [Kim McManus]: Well, you know, we have nothing [Speaker 3 ]: else until one o'clock. So basically, hey. No. Yeah. I've been I've [Speaker 6 ]: been having trouble. You know? [Kim McManus]: No, Ben? [Speaker 3 ]: He's gonna be down in GovOps for, for an amendment to page four. That is Aaron. Okay. Yeah. So so I I was asked so when the decision to transfer a non big fourteen case from family court to criminal court. So do state's attorneys how how does the risk and needs assessment, weigh into that? Is is that something that's looked at to say, yeah. This case should be transferred to criminal court. This is high risk, high needs, or whatever. Or how does that work with that? Because I I'd asked I don't know if you were here, but I was asking a question about you know, is is that a trigger point that if there were a high risk, high needs, that we automatically send it to a to a hearing. But is that something that [Kim McManus]: It it's a factor. You know, it's like all the pieces of information that we heard of, it's it's a factor depending on what you know. If it does say medium or high risk, that's that's alerting us, and then we're but with them, we're looking further, you know, why why we have these you know, it's in multiple interactions with the police, and then multiple similar situations. Like, what what's going on here to to create that high risk? Or the opposite, it's low risk, but and I don't I wish I had one in front of me because I remember when I would scan through them don't quote me on this even though it's on the record, but I remember so sorry. Speak to this. You know, like, is that possible? But there is something to the effect of and maybe attorney Jones can correct me, because he looked at plenty of these as well. But, on the assessment, sometimes the assessment wouldn't capture that we had three other juvenile petitions for this individual. Right? Like, that might not be that might not cross yet depending on where, you know, if they've been adjudicated, then that would be there. But I believe there's or if we knew I knew there was two investigations pending. Alright? That there's, like, maybe three different allegations of similar behavior. I only have one case before me. The Yazi wouldn't know that I have two others appropriately. But so they may score low on here, but in my mind, I'm like, oh, I don't like, I need more I need that other information as well. So it it's a tool. It's a factor, and it goes into the whole a mix of the consideration. [Speaker 3 ]: Anything else? Alright. I don't see anything else. We were gonna have a Thank you very much. [Kim McManus]: It'll be pretty fast, but I know. [Speaker 3 ]: But I was I was going to go over one zero five and do a walk through, but since it's

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Judiciary - 2025-02-12 - 10:20 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: