Legislative wrap-up on parental rights
By Renee McGuinness
Two bills that undermine parental rights and responsibilities have passed out of the Vermont legislature this legislative session. One bill provides a soft emancipation of minors to enter into contracts without parental consent, while another violates federal law by failing to acquire parental consent for children who choose to participate in peer-to-peer mental health support programs in school or after-school settings.
Language of H.657 “runaway” bill is overly broad
H.657 is overly broad and subject to misinterpretation by the Vermont Department of Children and Families (DCF). H.657 “An act relating to various programming and requirements within the Department for Children and Families”, also known as the “runaway bill” because of its potential to entice teens into seeking autonomy from their parents, provides a mechanism for soft emancipation of minors ages 16 – 17. Section 4 of H.657 states the intent to provide “unaccompanied” youth with an “unaccompanied minor” certificate to seek medical and mental health treatment, obtain vital records, open bank accounts, and contract with entities to obtain housing and automobiles, without parent or guardian consent.
The crux of H.657 seems to be about administering medical and mental health treatments, as generally speaking, minors ages 16 – 17 lack a financial credit history by which entities can determine the youth’s ability to fulfill any rental or loan obligations.
Vermont Family Alliance testified on H.657 in Senate Health and Welfare in April, offering amendments to clarify some of the language to ensure due process under the Vermont DCF is not circumvented.
For example, while the intent is to provide services for unaccompanied minors, “in which severe family dysfunction such as abuse, neglect, child abandonment” is a determining factor, “or lack of financial support” is also listed. VFA requested that Senate Health and Welfare strike “or lack of financial support,” because lack of financial means is not a determining factor in parents’ or guardian’s capacity to oversee their children’s upbringing and provide consent to services for their minor-age children, nor does lack of financial capacity mean parents or guardians are being abusive, neglectful, or have abandoned their own child. Proof of abandonment through DCF due process is the only way to know whether parents have actively withdrawn financial support for their own children.
In addition, “’Unaccompanied youth” in H.657, “means a homeless child or youth 16 or 17 years of age who is not in the physical custody of a parent or guardian.” This definition is too broad. VFA suggested that the Senate Health and Welfare committee refine the definition of “Unaccompanied Youth” to ensure that only youth for which it has been determined under DCF due process that the parents are abusive, neglectful, or have abandoned their child might be qualified to receive certain services stated in H.657.
The potential that “unaccompanied youth” could be interpreted by DCF in its broadest sense was demonstrated when Representative Jubilee McGill, Addison-5 and lead sponsor of H.657, told the House Committee on Judiciary on March 18 that a child would be considered an unaccompanied minor, if, for example, a family is kicked out of the hotel program and the parents are living in a tent while their child is couch-surfing. This description of an “unaccompanied minor” fails due process under the DCF to determine whether the parents or guardians are abusive, neglectful, or have abandoned their child.
VFA suggested the definition of “unaccompanied youth” be changed to, “means a homeless youth 16 or 17 years of age for whom it has been determined by DCF to have been abandoned by their parents or guardians.”
Lack of financial transparency in contracting with non-profit organizations
Another issue with H.657 is the lack of transparency regarding use of tax dollars in government contracts with NGOs. While Elevate Youth Services’ Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Services was originally assigned the task of developing a standardized form to certify qualifying “unaccompanied” youth in the version of the bill that passed out of the House, (Page 23), the final draft of the bill states that the Department of Children and Families, “shall contract with a community organization that serves homeless and runaway youth in Vermont to develop a standardized form . . . to certify unaccompanied youth.” The DCF Compass program, which “provides crisis prevention and stabilization programs for youth ages 12 – 23 years old”, lists multiple non-profits with which the state contracts for child services. Regardless of whether a specific NGO is named in the bill or not, when government contracts with an NGO to perform services, tax dollars are paid to that NGO. How much? Who knows. That information is not transparent in the state’s annual budgets.
The Vermont Joint Fiscal Office note indicates a fiscal impact of $700,000 of Social Security benefits for youth in foster care and up to $135,000 salary for an additional full-time employee to implement H.657 through DCF in fiscal year 2028.
VFA suggested to Senate Health and Welfare that DCF should be the entity that designs the unaccompanied minor certification form.
H.657 invites bad actors to contract with certified minors
H.657 also includes a provision that provides immunity from liability for entities that contract with minors, including health care professionals, who “relies in good faith on a certification form presented by a person who claims to be a certified unaccompanied youth . . . unless the entity, provider, or health care professional acted with gross negligence.” VFA asked that safeguards be put in place to ensure that certification forms presented to entities with whom a youth wishes to contract are not fraudulent, and that “fraud” also be included along with “gross negligence.”
None of VFA’s suggestions were taken up by either Senate Health and Welfare or the Senate body.
Mental health programs in schools law would violate federal requirement to acquire parental consent
H.817, “An act relating to mental health literacy and peer-to-peer supports in schools,” has changed from a bill allowing voluntary mental health literacy and peer-to-peer support pilot programs in schools to a law to research funding for these programs.
H.817 originally intended to provide mental health literacy and peer-lead mental health groups to students as young as pre-K. The law lacks a provision requiring express parental consent or the right to opt out prior to questioning children on sensitive subjects such as mental and physical health, and the right to access all instructional materials, to meet federal requirements. The federal requirement is known as the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). Federally funded schools must comply with the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) or risk the loss of federal funds. In addition, H.817 stated that the support is non-clinical, therefore medical privacy would not apply.
Under H.817, educators, school personnel, and students will be certified to identify, discuss, and offer support to peers on weighty subjects such as depression, suicidality, and substance use disorders. Representative Daisy Berbeco, Chittenden-21, lead sponsor of H.817, stated that parental involvement would depend upon how each school district and community decides to implement the program when she was interrogated by Representative Rob North, Addison-3 on the House floor on March 19, regarding the lack of parental consent or notification.
H.817 also lacks a provision that requires schools to inform parents and guardians that they have a right to access their children’s education records, including records on mental health programs in schools, until the age of 18 under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Multiple SCOTUS decisions uphold parental rights
Legislative Counsel Katie McLinn not only failed to mention federal laws that could apply to H.817 but also failed to advise House and Senate committees about applicable SCOTUS decisions.
The SCOTUS ruled in Mirabelli v. Bonta, March 2, 2026, that parents, not the state, hold primary authority over the upbringing and education of their own children, including mental health.
“The Court found that California’s secret transition regime likely violates parents’ rights under both the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, holding that the state ‘cut out the primary protectors of children’s best interests: their parents,’” according to Thomas More Society, which litigated the case.
The Vermont Agency of Education, like California, has a dual-records policy for students who identify as LGBTQ+, keeping the student’s identity secret from parents.
In another SCOTUS decision on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that parents have a constitutional right to direct the religious upbringing of their children. SeeMahmoud v. Taylor.
Both the House Committee on Health Care and the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare denied VFA’s request to testify on H.817 before the committees. Instead, VFA submitted written testimony for the committees to consider. VFA’s warning to Senate Health and Welfare that implementing H.817 without express parental consent would make Vermont vulnerable to lawsuits and loss of funding was not heeded.
While the excuse for denying VFA’s request to testify on H.817 in the House and Senate committees was due to time, Senator Virginia Lyons, Chair of Senate Health and Welfare, received testimony from two students from Winooski who extolled the benefits of “trusted adults” and peers in their mental health programs in school. Parents were brought into the loop with only one of the students.
As of June 2, 2026, Governor Phil Scott has not signed H.657 and H.817 into law.
The post Anti-parental rights bills pass the legislature in 2026 first appeared on Vermont Daily Chronicle.
The post Anti-parental rights bills pass the legislature in 2026 appeared first on Vermont Daily Chronicle.
