Lawmakers Wednesday afternoon adopted language proposed by the Department for Children and Families in a bill about minor guardianship regarding DCF’s role in those cases.
Overall, the legislation establishes clearer processes for situations where someone other than the state, such as a grandparent, assumes responsibility for a child.
After a floor session, the House Human Services Committee convened to mark up the bill that the House Judiciary Committee voted out last week.
Human Services did not vote on the bill, H.581, because they are waiting for Vice Chairwoman Sandy Haas to rewrite one section. Haas, P/D-Rochester, is the sponsor.
The bill is the result of a 2012 special report to the Legislature about guardianship by a committee that included child advocates, judges, a juvenile defender and a Department for Children and Families official.
Unlike so-called CHINS proceedings (child in need of supervision), where DCF takes custody of a child, minor guardianship is between two private parties, though it requires approval from a judge. The bill has separate guidelines for consensual or nonconsensual guardianship.
DCF Deputy Commissioner Cindy Walcott explained to the committee her department’s proposed changes to the section of the bill about DCF involvement in guardianships, which, in general, is minimal.
Walcott said her changes aimed to simplify the law. DCF should write policies to address specifics, she said.
The committee ultimately accepted nearly all her proposed simplifications, asking legislative attorney Erik FitzPatrick to substitute them into the bill.
One change makes it clear that DCF social workers who are investigating a situation of purported child safety should not encourage or recommend that a family pursue minor guardianship.
Family advocate Trine Bech, executive director of Vermont Parent Representation Center, during testimony objected to one change from DCF, a change the committee ultimately accepted.
That change removed the last line of the bill, which concerned guardianship in situations where DCF is already involved. The bill said if the child is in a safe situation and there are no new reports of abuse or neglect, DCF should close the case within three months.
Walcott said it is already DCF’s policy to close such cases after three months but that “blanket language” should not be written into law because each case is different.
“Even if we didn’t get a new report of child abuse and neglect then I didn’t feel like it would be good to have language in the statute that says you have to close the close in three months,” Walcott said.
Bech instead proposed keeping the three-month requirement and asking DCF to ask for a waiver in exceptional situations.
The committee Wednesday also heard from Lynn Granger, the director of Vermont Kin as Parents, a nonprofit group that helps guardians navigate the legal and social services systems that come with caring for someone else’s child.
Granger and others have said those systems are complicated and confusing and the bill should specify that someone, perhaps organizations like her own, should be paid to help guardians.
Those groups have conceded, however, that the bill should not be held up this session if money is not appropriated for such advocate groups.
Although that was not the focus of the committee’s discussion Wednesday, Granger addressed those concerns.
She shared a chart that detailed the inequity between benefits foster parents (whose children are in DCF custody) receive versus those available to guardians.
She said guardianship costs the state far less than foster care, yet guardians are not afforded the same benefits as foster parents, such as legal support or as much financial support.
Guardians and those who assist them say drug abuse is increasingly a reason why parents are unable to care for their children.
