Judiciary Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6667
AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JUVENILE
Title: JUSTICE POLICY AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
Vote Date: 4/8/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/31/2021
File No.: 599
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Judiciary Committee
Rep. Travis Simms, 140th Dist.,
Rep. Anthony L. Nolan, 39th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill is the collaborative effort of the Judiciary Committee and the Juvenile Justice Policy
and Oversight Committee to implement the recommendations of the latter committee for the
State of Connecticut to more effectively deter juvenile re-offenses and adult criminal
behavior. The proposed legislation would increase the minimum age of arrest from age 7 to
12, require a report from the Judicial Branch on the number of 911 and 211 calls in relation to
minors, seek to phase out the practice of suspensions and expulsions, ban the use of
chemical agents in juvenile correctional facilities, and automatically expunge juvenile criminal
records when an individual turns 18 for most offenses.
SUBSTITUTE LANGUAGE:
The substitute language deletes Sec. 2: 46b-121n JJPOC; Sec. 6: 10-253; Sec. 10: 10-
233c(g); Sec. 12: 46b-127; Sec. 14: Providing voice communication services; Sec. 17: 54-1m
adding traffic & pedestrian stops; and Sec. 18 regarding a collaborative study of pedestrian
stops. Substitute language was in response to stakeholder testimony provided during the
public hearing.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities supports this bill and
states that it will take steps to address the racial and economic disparity in juvenile justice
system. It is further stated that section 11, which would phase out suspensions and
expulsions, will have a positive impact since these measures have a significant disparity
among students based on their race, sex, and disability statuses.
The Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice takes no position on this bill as a whole but
states opposition to section 12. Division suggests amendments to sections 19-21. In sec. 19,
amendment offered that if the infraction is removed from the delinquency category, it should
be placed in another category, such as neglected or requiring treatment through the juvenile
review boards (JRB). Sec. 20, juveniles under the age of sixteen should be referred to a JRB
if found to be in possession of marijuana paraphernalia on multiple occurrences. Sec. 21, the
Division recommends adding to the membership of the implementation team to include a DCJ
representative as well as a representative from the Office of the Chief Public Defender. They
would have invaluable experience in determining who should be deemed low-risk, what
diversion plans work best and at what point diversion can be best accomplished. The
automatic prearrest diversion for Tier 1 and Tier 2 youth should require trainings for local law
enforcement agencies.
The State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families, Commissioner, Vannessa
Dorantes; DCF stands ready to work with the Judiciary Committee and the JJPOC to ensure
that youth in juvenile justice facilities are afforded a quality education and provided with the
tools to be successful in life after their release.
State of Connecticut Office of the Chief Public Defender, Director of Delinquency Defense
and Child Protection Susan I. Hamilton supports the intent of this bill and states support for
raising the minimum age that a juvenile can be arrested from 7 to 12. It is further stated that
the Office supports sections 2 and 4 but offers clarifying amendments to the language.
Sections 5-10, which contain the educational components of the bill, are supported as well,
as is section 11 which discontinue the use of suspensions and expulsions. The Office further
supports section 12 as it would work to limit the number of juveniles who enter the adult
criminal justice system. The office further supports sections 13, 16, which would provide
criminal record erasure for crimes committed as a juvenile and ban the use of chemical
agents on juveniles. Sections 17, 18, and 22 are also supported. Regarding sections 19-21,
the Office respects the intentions of the bill but does not believe that the language as written
will accomplish the goal since it would move all offenses regarding drug paraphernalia to
adult criminal court if the offender is between 16 and 17, where now the cases for those 16
and 17 years old are handled in juvenile court automatically.
State of Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate, Acting Child Advocate, Sarah Healy Eagan
supports this bill and states the Office's support for the following provisions: section 1, which
would raise the age of juvenile court jurisdictions to 12; section 2, which calls for analysis of
how different areas utilize the 911 emergency phone line as well as calling for the Juvenile
Justice Policy and Oversight Committee to study the data regarding incarcerated youth under
the age of 20; section 10, which would eliminate school suspensions for those ages 3-7 and
includes a plan to eliminate exclusionary discipline for all students; section 14, which would
provide free phone calls for incarcerated youth; and section 16, which would ban the use of
chemical agents towards minors from state criminal justice agencies.
The Connecticut Judicial Branch does not offer support nor opposition but does offer
comments on the recommended implementation time for sections 12 and 13. The Branch
requests changing the effective date of section 12 to January 2022 to allow for computer
Page 2 of 9 HB-6667
system implementation changes. When a child has served 50% of their sentence, a hearing
would have to be held and the branch requests time to update their computer system to flag
the 50% date. Sec. 13 requires the Court to automatically erase all police and court records
however the Branch does not have the authority to erase police records. The Branch
requests an effective date change to October 1, 2022 for the significant computer changes
and coordination with other agencies. Additionally, consideration should be given to removing
references to Family With Service Needs (FWSN) proceedings, as FWSN proceedings were
eliminated on July 1, 2020. Finally, they request the definition of court records exclude a
record or transcript of the proceedings made or prepared by an Official Court Reporter or
Court Recording Monitor, consistent with 54-142a(h).
State of Connecticut Office of Policy Management, Undersecretary for Criminal Justice Policy
and Planning, Marc Pelka offers comments on various sections of the bill, including sections
12, 13, 17, and 19-21. Regarding section 12, concern is stated regarding the proposed
change in transfer law and it is stated that maintaining current transfer law which provides
space for judicial discretion will help Connecticut juvenile justice reform continue to make
progress. Regarding section 13, it's recommended that the provision in this bill is brought in
line with other proposals regarding the erasure of criminal records with other legislation being
heard in the Judiciary Committee (SBs 1019 and 888). Substitute language is offered for
section 17 that would extend the date until implementation as well as giving OPM and the
advisory board the authority to define "traffic stop" and "pedestrian stop" for the purposes of
the report requested. Regarding sections 19-21, it's asked that a representative from the
Division of Criminal Justice be added to the implementation team.
State of Connecticut Office of the Victim Advocate, State Victim Advocate, Natasha M. Pierre
opposes section 12 of this bill and proposes an amendment to section 21. It is stated
regarding section 12 that the removal of the automatic transfer from juvenile to adult criminal
court triggered by a class B felony charge will take rights away from victims of these crimes
and that the proposal does not provide a mechanism for victim notification of the review for a
sentence to be reduced Regarding section 21, it is stated that language should be added that
will increase victim involvement in the criminal justice process.
Connecticut Department of Correction, Commissioner, Angel Quiros opposes section 16 of
this bill and states that the use of chemical agents such as pepper spray in juvenile correction
is utilized as a last resort and is necessary in certain situations.
The Connecticut Department of Education, Acting Commissioner, Charlene Russell-Tucker
offers comments on sections 4, 8, and 10 of this bill. It is stated regarding section 4 that the
Department is ready to work with the implementation board to fulfill the requirements outlined
for the Department in this section. It is further stated regarding section 8 that due to the local
nature of graduation requirements that they would wish to seek input from local and regional
boards of education. Regarding section 10, the Department supports the concept of phasing
out suspensions and expulsions but wishes for extra implementation time as well resources
to be properly allocated so that an alternative method can be developed.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Connecticut General Assembly, 8th Senate District, Sen. Kevin Witkos does not express
support or opposition to the measures of this bill but states a commitment to deterring car
Page 3 of 9 HB-6667
thefts while maintaining support of programs that will support youths to prevent future
offenses.
Middletown, CT, Resident, Jeanette Blackwell supports this bill and states support for raising
the minimum age in which a child can be arrested.
Connecticut Justice Alliance, Justice Advisor, Tenille Bonilla; Justice Advisor, Sage Grady;
Justice Advisor, Ronnie Henderson; Justice Advisor, Gemini Rorie; Justice Advisor, Alona
Scott; Justice Advisor, Fernicia Smith; Community Connections Associate, Jordyn Wilson;
Policy Director, Iliana Pujols; Executive Director, Christina Quaranta support this bill and
states support for the automatic erasure of juvenile justice records without petitioning. It is
further stated that needing to erase an old record is a difficult process and that automatically
erasing it will prevent a juvenile's mistakes from impact them as adults.
CT Youth Services Organization, Juvenile Justice Liaison and Juvenile Justice Policy and
Oversight Committee Board Member, Erica Bromley supports this bill but requests changes
to section 21, stating that the JJPO recommended that tier one offenses would be
decriminalized entirely to avoid arrests and that change is not reflected in the bill. It is further
stated that the changes put forth in this bill would increase the amount of work required by
the juvenile justice system and recommends an increase in funds to enable the juvenile
justice system to handle this extra burden.
Norwalk, CT, Resident, Claudette Carino supports this bill and states that the minimum age
for arrest should be raised to reflect child maturity levels.
Center for Children's Advocacy, Director of TeamChild Youth Justice Project, Marisa Halm
J.D.; and Executive Director, Martha Stone, J.D.; Staff Attorney for the Homeless Youth
Advocacy Project, Adam Yagaloff support this bill and states support for raising the minimum
age a juvenile can be arrested from 7 to 12, educational programs designed to create a more
thorough education for children in the juvenile justice system, and the automatic erasure of
juvenile criminal records when the juvenile becomes an adult.
East Lyme, CT, Resident and Teacher, Kara Donnelly supports this bill and states support for
raising the minimum age a juvenile can be arrested, the phasing out of suspensions and
expulsions, and the discontinuation of use of chemical agents towards juveniles.
West Haven, CT, Resident, Barbara Fair supports this bill and states support for raising the
minimum age a juvenile can be arrested from age 7 to 12.
Special Education Equity for Kids in Connecticut supports this bill and states support for
section 11, which seeks to phase out the practice of suspensions and expulsions. It is further
stated that this will allow for students to remain in their educational environment and will allow
for the student to learn and grow.
Center for Children's Advocacy, Youth Organizer, Lourdes Fonseca supports this bill and
states support for the provisions that would provide cost-free phone calls to juveniles, erase
their criminal record when juveniles turn 18, and stop the use of chemical agents on
juveniles.
Page 4 of 9 HB-6667
ACLU CT, Interim Public Policy and Advocacy Director, Claudine Fox supports this bill and
states support for raising the minimum age a juvenile can be arrested from 7 to 12. Support is
further stated for the provision that would end the practice of declaring a juvenile a delinquent
for offenses that does not rise to the level of a misdemeanor as well as the quick erasure of
criminal records when a juvenile reaches the age of 18.
Hartford Foundation of Public Giving supports this bill and states that the language proposed
will work to keep children out of the juvenile and criminal justice systems and states that by
diverting youth to other programs that the state can mitigate the potential long-term impact of
juveniles entering the criminal justice system.
Deep River CT, Resident, Stefanie Hill supports this bill and states that it's harmful to children
to incarcerate and enter them into the criminal justice system and thus supports increasing
the age that a juvenile can be arrested from 7 to 12.
Connecticut Bar Association, Child Welfare and Juvenile Law Section, Chris Oakley supports
section 16 of this bill and states that correctional facilities should find alternatives to chemical
agents such as pepper spray to use as a de-escalation tactic.
University of New Haven, Tow Youth Justice Institute, Staff Member, Kelly Orts; Director of
Research, Danielle Tolson Cooper Ph.D, CPP supports the provision of this bill that would
increase the minimum age that a juvenile can be arrested from 7 to 12.
Hamden, CT, Resident, Laura Perkins Davidson supports this bill and states that children
should not be treated as adults in the criminal justice system and supports language that
would increase the minimum age of arrest for juveniles to 12.
Greater Hartford Legal Aide, Connecticut Legal Services, and New Haven Legal Assistance
Association support this bill and offer an amendment to section 4. The three organizations
support raising the minimum age a juvenile can be arrested from 7 to 12 (section 1), the
JJPOC membership section (section 2), the phasing out of suspensions and expulsions
(sections 11-12), and the erasure of criminal records for juveniles when they reach the age of
18.
CT Voices for Children, Research and Policy Director, Lauren Ruth supports this bill and
states support for language that would increase the minimum age of arrest for a juvenile from
7 to 12. Support is further stated for a study analyzing 911 and 211 calls regarding incidents
involving juveniles, the erasure of criminal court records for juveniles once they reach the age
of 18, and providing free phone calls to incarcerated minors.
African Caribbean American Parents of Children with Disabilities, Executive Director, Ann
R.Smith J.D., MBA supports this bill and states support for the language regarding education
and community expertise.
Youth S.P.E.A.K.S., Member, Jaqueline Swaggerty supports this bill and states that it will
improve the lives of children who need support.
CT, Resident and Student, Yarivette Velazquez supports this bill and states support for
language that would automatically expunge the records of juveniles who committed certain
Page 5 of 9 HB-6667
offenses when they turn 18. It is stated that this will prevent a juvenile mistake affecting a
person's entire adulthood.
The following members of the public expressed support for HB 6667. Due to the timing of the
public hearing schedule, it seems that many people accidentally grouped this bill and HB
6669, which are bills with different scope and intent, therefore this support may have not
been intentional.
Barkhamsted, CT, John Kornegay
CT, Resident, Fran Adinolfi Seymour, CT, Resident, Susan Liscinsky
Windsor, CT, Resident, Dr. Linda S. Middletown, CT Resident, Joan Liska
Alexander Oakville, CT, Resident, Kenneth Lukowski
Trumbull, CT, Resident, Gary R. Anderson Oakdale, CT Resident, Gary Lussier
CT, Resident, Robert Anderson Hartland, CT, Resident, Edward Marshall
CT, Resident, Paul Andrews Southington, CT Resident, Laurene Y.
Avon, CT, Resident, Thomas Armstrong McCrann
CT, Residents, Art and Karen Bill Mikulewicz
CT, Resident, Iris Castro Toni-Lynn Miles
Willington, CT, Resident, Richard E. Claus Chester, CT, Resident, Bill Myers
CT, Resident, Diane Dalton Willington, CT, Resident, Elaine Newcomb
New York, NY, Resident, Peter F. Farinella CT, Resident, Joseph Orazietti
CT, Resident, John J. Ferrante CT, Resident, Barbara Pasha
CT, Resident, Robert A. Fiore Jacob R. Raitt
Weatogue, CT Resident Melanie Finn- CT, Resident, Mary Ann Raph
Schofield Orange, CT, Resident, Irma Rappaport
Farmington, CT, Resident, James Foote CT, Resident, Jim Reilly
Stamford, CT, Resident, Joe Frattaroli CT, Resident, Jennifer Rottkamp
Suffield, CT, Resident, Regina Graziani New Fairfield, CT, Resident, Eric
Wethersfield, CT, Resident, Christopher Schonenberg
Healy CT,