An act relating to prohibiting solitary confinement for children
H.192 would prohibit the use of solitary confinement or room confinement for children in secure facilities, including juvenile detention settings, except as a temporary emergency response when a child poses a serious and immediate risk of physical harm to themselves or others. Before confinement may be used, facility staff must first attempt less restrictive de-escalation measures, including talking with the child and allowing a qualified mental health professional to intervene. If confinement is used, staff must explain the reason for it and inform the child of the conditions for release.
The bill sets strict limits on how long a child may remain in room confinement. A child must be released immediately once they regain self-control, and if that does not occur, confinement may last no more than three hours when the risk is to others, or 30 minutes when the risk is to the child. Staff must check on the child at least every 15 minutes, and if the risk continues after the time limit, the child must be transferred to another facility or location where other services can be provided. The bill also clarifies that it does not restrict ordinary single-person housing or sleeping arrangements, and it preserves any stronger protections already in law.
H.192 would add a new section to Title 33 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated governing juvenile delinquency and secure placements, creating an explicit statutory ban on solitary confinement for children with narrow emergency exceptions. It would impose operational requirements on detention and secure facilities, including de-escalation efforts, mental health involvement, time-limited confinement, frequent welfare checks, and transfer obligations when confinement is no longer appropriate. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025, and would affect children held in juvenile justice or other secure residential settings, as well as the staff and agencies responsible for their care and custody.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a child-welfare and juvenile-justice reform bill with a protective intent. Its sponsors present it as a safeguard against harmful isolation practices for minors, while still allowing a narrow emergency response for immediate safety threats. No formal vote history or transcript record is provided here, so there is no documented opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between protecting children from the harms of isolation and preserving facility staff’s ability to respond to dangerous behavior. Supporters would emphasize that solitary confinement is inappropriate for children and that de-escalation and mental health intervention should come first. Potential critics may argue that the strict time limits, mandatory checks, and transfer requirement could limit staff discretion or create operational challenges in secure facilities, especially when a child remains dangerous after the confinement window expires.