Vermont
Vermont ACLU claims state conducts 'surveillance and brazen intervention' into Vermonters’ pregnancies – VTDigger
Updated at 9:34 a.m.
The Vermont Department for Children and Families went to extraordinary and illegal lengths to remove a child from its mother’s custody, aided by an internal program that monitors the pregnancies of multiple Vermonters, a new lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont alleges.
The 30-page complaint, which was filed Wednesday afternoon in the Lamoille County Superior Court’s civil division, accuses the department of secretly tracking the pregnancies of multiple Vermonters that it deems “high-risk” with an internal calendar, without their knowledge or consent.
The ACLU’s suit focuses on the case of one mother, identified only as A.V., in which the Department for Children and Families — citing concerns about A.V.’s mental health — allegedly used confidential medical information to secure custody of her daughter before she had even given birth. The department also allegedly sought a court order for the hospital to perform a caesarean section while the mother was in labor, all without A.V.’s knowledge.
DCF removed the infant from her mother’s custody immediately after she was born, according to the suit, only to have the child returned by court order months later.
“No court ever found that A.V. lacked parental capacity,” the suit reads, alleging that DCF did not cite any formal mental health evaluation of A.V. to support its actions.
In an interview, ACLU senior staff attorney Harrison Stark said the case was extremely concerning.
“This case is so egregious in so many ways that it should really shock the conscience of any Vermonter who cares about personal autonomy or reproductive liberty,” he said.
Two New York legal entities, the nonprofit Pregnancy Justice and the law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, as well as Middlebury attorney Sarah Star, are also representing the plaintiff with the ACLU.
The complaint names DCF as a defendant, as well as Morrisville’s Copley Hospital and Lund, a family services nonprofit based in South Burlington. The latter entities, according to the suit, improperly provided DCF with confidential information about A.V.
Chris Winters, the commissioner of DCF, said in a text message Thursday morning that he had not reviewed the suit and had no comment.
Wayne Stockbridge, the chief administrative officer of Copley Hospital, said in a brief interview Thursday morning that he had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment on it. Ken Schatz, Lund’s interim CEO, said in a text Thursday morning that Lund had not received the suit.
‘No legal mechanism’
A.V., now 36, became pregnant with her first child in 2021, according to the ACLU’s lawsuit. The ACLU declined VTDigger’s request to speak with A.V.
Around the beginning of her third trimester, the suit reads, A.V. temporarily moved from her Elmore apartment to Charter House, a homeless shelter in Middlebury.
In January 2022, Charter House’s executive director spoke with DCF staffers about A.V. and expressed concerns about her mental health, according to the suit. Based on that conversation, the complaint said, a DCF caseworker conducted an “assessment” of A.V., interviewing and collecting confidential records from staff at Copley Hospital, where A.V. planned to deliver her baby, and Lund, where she had received prenatal counseling.
Contrary to Vermont law, that assessment was done without A.V.’s knowledge or participation, according to the lawsuit. DCF allegedly collected confidential medical information during that assessment and concluded that there were “significant concerns” with A.V.’s mental health.
Crucially, that conclusion did not draw on a professional mental health evaluation, according to the lawsuit.
Having identified A.V. as a concern, DCF was keeping tabs on her pregnancy without her knowledge or consent, the suit alleges.
According to DCF policy, the department may intervene in cases of illegal substance use or a “lack of parental capacity” even before the birth of a child. The policy states that the department may conduct assessments in “situations where a woman is pregnant and either parent or caretaker has a substantial history with DCF.” That assessment can take place one month before an individual’s due date or sooner if they are expected to deliver the infant earlier, per the policy.
That policy, the ACLU argues, has no basis in law.
“There is no legal mechanism — to my knowledge, and I can’t imagine one — that allows DCF to intervene while a fetus remains in somebody’s body,” Stark said in an interview.
How exactly DCF could know the status of someone’s pregnancy is not spelled out in its policy. But according to the ACLU’s lawsuit, DCF maintains an internal “high-risk pregnancy docket,” a calendar that it uses to track pregnancies in individuals “because DCF speculates they will be unfit parents.”
It’s unclear how many people that alleged calendar tracks.
“Tragically, A.V.’s experience is not unique,” the suit reads. “She is only one of many expectant Vermonters who have been ensnared in DCF’s speculative surveillance and brazen intervention into their pregnancy and birthing plans.”
‘It just doesn’t make any sense’
On Feb. 11, 2022, when DCF learned that A.V. was in labor, the department moved swiftly to obtain custody of her child, according to the lawsuit.
While A.V. was at Copley, DCF allegedly petitioned Lamoille Superior Court’s family division for an emergency order transferring custody of the still unborn baby to the department.
The DCF caseworker argued that the order was necessary “given the significant concerns regarding A.V.’s mental state, and her ability to provide safe care for an infant,” according to a DCF affidavit cited by the ACLU’s lawsuit. That affidavit said, falsely, that the baby had already been born on February 11, according to the suit.
 100vw, 2560px”><figcaption class=)
The department learned about A.V.’s labor — something that should have been confidential medical information — from medical practitioners and staff at Copley Hospital, according to the lawsuit.
DCF’s affidavit also allegedly argued that the department should take custody of the child because of A.V.’s history with DCF. That history, the suit said, amounted to an incident — when A.V. was 16 — of “a physical altercation” with A.V.’s father and allegations that she herself was abused by a parent.
“The logic of that is, essentially, that if you are involved in the DCF system as a teenager, as a kid, as a victim — that somehow justifies the agency’s intrusion into your choices and your parenting as an adult,” Stark said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
The family court granted DCF’s emergency order, transferring custody of the still-unborn child to the department, according to the lawsuit.
The department and Copley Hospital, apparently concerned about complications from the delivery, even allegedly took the unusual step of asking the court to order A.V. to undergo emergency medical procedures — a caesarean section or a “vacuum procedure,” a practice that employs suction to help deliver an infant.
In a legal flurry that took place while A.V. was in labor, and entirely without her knowledge, DCF allegedly sought the authority, first from the Department of Mental Health and then from Lamoille Superior Court’s civil division, to force A.V. to undergo the procedure. DCF argued that she was experiencing “delusions and paranoia” — an assessment that the court expressed skepticism about, according to the ACLU’s lawsuit.
But during a court hearing on the matter, according to the suit, Copley staff learned that A.V. had already agreed voluntarily to the medical procedures.
‘Violates the right to personal reproductive autonomy’
On February 12, A.V. gave birth to a healthy baby girl, named in the suit as S.V., according to the complaint. But immediately after the infant’s birth, DCF separated her from her mother and subsequently placed her in a foster home, the suit alleges.
“A.V. was not allowed to hold — or even touch — her baby,” the lawsuit reads.
 100vw, 2000px”><figcaption class=)
A.V. received a mental health screening from Lamoille County Mental Health the day she gave birth — her first professional evaluation during this whole process, according to the lawsuit. Other than a flat affect, A.V.’s mental health was judged to be normal, per the ACLU’s suit.
Five months later, after a prolonged legal tussle, a family court ordered the baby to be reunited with her mother, the complaint said.
The 13-count lawsuit alleges that DCF, Lund and Copley Hospital violated a raft of laws and Vermont’s constitution.
Additionally, “DCF’s ongoing pattern and practice of unlawfully surveilling pregnant Vermonters through the ‘high-risk pregnancy docket’ or ‘calendar’ systemically violates the right to personal reproductive autonomy” that Vermonters enshrined in the state constitution in 2022, the suit alleges.
The suit asks a judge to declare that “high-risk pregnancy docket” illegal and to halt monitoring the pregnancies of Vermonters that DCF deems risky. It also seeks an unspecified amount of damages and attorney’s fees.
Vermont
VT Lottery Gimme 5, Pick 3 results for July 16, 2026
Powerball, Mega Millions jackpots: What to know in case you win
Here’s what to know in case you win the Powerball or Mega Millions jackpot.
Just the FAQs, USA TODAY
The Vermont Lottery offers several draw games for those willing to make a bet to win big.
Those who want to play can enter the MegaBucks and Lucky for Life games as well as the national Powerball and Mega Millions games. Vermont also partners with New Hampshire and Maine for the Tri-State Lottery, which includes the Mega Bucks, Gimme 5 as well as the Pick 3 and Pick 4.
Drawings are held at regular days and times, check the end of this story to see the schedule.
Here’s a look at July 16, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Gimme 5 numbers from July 16 drawing
08-10-35-36-37
Check Gimme 5 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Pick 3 numbers from July 16 drawing
Day: 4-3-2
Evening: 3-4-4
Check Pick 3 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Pick 4 numbers from July 16 drawing
Day: 5-7-1-5
Evening: 6-6-9-0
Check Pick 4 payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from July 16 drawing
09-21-29-52-57, Bonus: 05
Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.
Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results
Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your lottery prize
For Vermont Lottery prizes up to $499, winners can claim their prize at any authorized Vermont Lottery retailer or at the Vermont Lottery Headquarters by presenting the signed winning ticket for validation. Prizes between $500 and $5,000 can be claimed at any M&T Bank location in Vermont during the Vermont Lottery Office’s business hours, which are 8a.m.-4p.m. Monday through Friday, except state holidays.
For prizes over $5,000, claims must be made in person at the Vermont Lottery headquarters. In addition to signing your ticket, you will need to bring a government-issued photo ID, and a completed claim form.
All prize claims must be submitted within one year of the drawing date. For more information on prize claims or to download a Vermont Lottery Claim Form, visit the Vermont Lottery’s FAQ page or contact their customer service line at (802) 479-5686.
Vermont Lottery Headquarters
1311 US Route 302, Suite 100
Barre, VT
05641
When are the Vermont Lottery drawings held?
- Powerball: 10:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
- Mega Millions: 11 p.m. Tuesday and Friday.
- Gimme 5: 6:55 p.m. Monday through Friday.
- Lucky for Life: 10:38 p.m. daily.
- Pick 3 Day: 1:10 p.m. daily.
- Pick 4 Day: 1:10 p.m. daily.
- Pick 3 Evening: 6:55 p.m. daily.
- Pick 4 Evening: 6:55 p.m. daily.
- Megabucks: 7:59 p.m. Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
- Millionaire for Life: 11:15 p.m. daily
What is Vermont Lottery Second Chance?
Vermont’s 2nd Chance lottery lets players enter eligible non-winning instant scratch tickets into a drawing to win cash and/or other prizes. Players must register through the state’s official Lottery website or app. The drawings are held quarterly or are part of an additional promotion, and are done at Pollard Banknote Limited in Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Vermont editor. You can send feedback using this form.
Vermont
A Vermont couple builds an 800-square-foot home on a budget – The Boston Globe
Sam Gabriels and Chrissy Bellmeyer were no strangers to living small. Before they met, Bellmeyer designed and lived in a tiny house on wheels and Gabriels spent four years living out of a van, looping the country to organize pop-up farm-to-table dinners alongside Michelin-starred chefs. So, when the couple bought a half-acre lot in Waitsfield, Vermont’s Mad River Valley in a development called the Waitsfield Ten, where neighbors help each other build, 800 square feet didn’t feel like a constraint.
Architectural designer and builder Andy White of Boreal Design started by creating a simple, 20-by-20-foot box that was drywalled, then painted, in a weekend. Inside it, White built the living spaces as independent, self-supporting platforms arranged at staggered heights. He describes the plan as a counter-clockwise spiral: Down one step from the entry into the living room, up two into the kitchen, up one more into the dining room.
The level variations define each space. “If built traditionally with two floor plates and 9-foot ceilings, the house would feel claustrophobic,” White says. “Here, you experience the full interior volume, with long sightlines from corner to corner.”
Without walls dividing the public spaces, rooms morph to fit current needs and individual elements do double or triple duty. For example, the open cubbies that store Gabriels’s vinyl collection are also perches for overflow dinner party guests in the dining room and extra seating in the living room. Initially, White worried — unnecessarily — that the living room was too small and lacked a wall for a television. The couple got a projector and screen, and noted that the deck expands the experience. The mechanicals and storage are under the floors.
Upstairs, the 8-by-12-foot space in front of the primary bedroom is both a closet/dressing area and mini lounge. In the morning, guests might wander over from the second bedroom to chat; during parties, it’s another spot to hang out. “We’re very open people, so it works for us,” Gabriels says. If things change, the couple could add standard-size French doors to hide their bed. The second bedroom, which already has a pocket door for privacy, could absorb the office nook beside it to become a larger bedroom.
The materials palette celebrates what’s commonly available: nothing is precious, everything is considered. Walls and ceilings throughout are CDX fir plywood — construction-grade sheathing that is normally hidden behind drywall. Structural fir posts, usually buried, are left exposed. The couple planed, sanded, and stained the posts and sanded all the plywood, removing lumberyard stamps. In place of galvanized joist hangers, White used inexpensive angle steel, spray-painted black. Running the length of the staircase and bracketing the bedroom thresholds, it’s the home’s signature accent. It matches the exterior siding — corrugated metal that is distinctive, inexpensive, easy to install, and low-maintenance.

Sustainability was non-negotiable. Fourteen-inch-thick, cellulose-filled walls push the dwelling past passive-house standards for insulation and airtightness. They also leave deep window sills that double as seating, plant shelves, and such. The utility bill for the all-electric home averages just over $100 per month (excluding internet).
Decor-wise, color does the talking. The bright yellow kitchen and pink-tiled bath are odes to homes that Gabriels admired in New Mexico, Oregon, and California. “We took a Pacifico beer bottle cap to Home Depot to find the right canary yellow for the kitchen cabinets,” Bellmeyer says.

White says his construction methods make it easy to add onto the home, although the couple has no plans to do so. Rather, they hope to build an ADU to offer housing to others in the community. “This is a mid-income development, making it cheaper than the median house price but not attainable for everyone,” Bellmeyer says.
Meanwhile, they’re grateful for White’s unconventional approach, fulfilling their wish list within the square footage their budget allowed.
White deflects the praise back onto the couple. “The home wouldn’t have come together the way that it did for anyone else; it’s very much theirs,” he says. “Chrissy and Sam’s vision, willingness to take risks and reimagine typical rooms, informed the design more than any specific space-saving or building strategy.”
Architectural designer and builder: Boreal Design, borealdesignvt.com
Cabinetmaker: Han Hewn, hanhewn.com

Marni Elyse Katz is a contributing editor to the Globe Magazine. Follow her on Instagram @StyleCarrot. Send comments to magazine@globe.com.
Vermont
Ben & Jerry’s Foundation says it will shut down amid legal dispute with parent company – VTDigger
The Ben & Jerry’s Foundation says it will shut down at the end of the year after its corporate parent cut off funding and evicted its three staffers Wednesday. The move leaves $600,000 a year in grants to Vermont organizations, and 40 years of the ice cream brand’s progressive mission, hanging on a judge’s future ruling.
“This is the other foot dropping in terms of the way Magnum is trying to destroy the social values of Ben & Jerry’s,” said Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, in an interview Wednesday.
The Vermont-based iconic ice cream brand has been in a legal fight with its parent company, The Magnum Ice Cream Co. — an ice-cream spinoff of the larger corporation Unilever — since November 2024. Ben & Jerry’s alleges that the corporation overreached its control, pushing out the CEO and interfering with the brand’s political views. The question before a judge is whether the corporate parent had the authority to reshape governance and withhold funding from the foundation.
Amid the push-and-pull over governance, Unilever audited the foundation, which is the philanthropic arm of Ben & Jerry’s, in April 2025, finding conflicts of interest and a lack of governance and financial control.
Liz Bankowski, president of the foundation’s board of trustees, said in an interview that Unilever withheld the philanthropy’s funding late last year and ordered foundation staff to vacate its corporate office in South Burlington by July 15 because of governance issues the audit raised. This led the foundation’s leaders to join the ongoing lawsuit, fought by the ice cream brand’s independent board, in an effort to retain funding. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
While the foundation’s leadership is framing the decision to cease operations as the only option after Unilever withheld funding, an unnamed spokesperson for Magnum wrote in a statement to VTDigger that the shuttering is “entirely down to the Trustees and their decision to ignore the findings of an independent audit and failure to put in place basic good governance; much to our dismay.”
Since the audit, the foundation has adopted a conflict of interest policy, but “the bottom line was that unless we changed our board, they were going to continue to withhold funding,” Bankowski said.
Cohen described the audit as “a bunch of trumped-up charges.”
“The foundation has been independently audited every year,” he said. “I think that Magnum was searching in vain for some illegal or unethical activities. I think they found none.”
Since Ben & Jerry’s sold the ice cream business to Unilever in 2000, the corporation has given $60 million to the foundation. The philanthropic arm has operated for 40 years, supporting the ice cream brand’s progressive mission by offering financial backing to social justice organizations across the country. The foundation does not have an endowment and is reliant on the funding its parent company gives annually, outlined in its merger contract.
A chunk of that funding, $600,000 a year, goes to Vermont organizations such as the immigrant farmworker rights organization Migrant Justice and the LGBTQ+ nonprofit Outright Vermont, according to foundation leaders.
“We fill a particular niche that not a lot of other funders fill,” said Rebecca Golden, the foundation’s director of programs, who has worked at the organization for 34 years.
Golden is one of three foundation staffers whose last day in the physical office is Wednesday, following orders from Magnum to vacate. Although Magnum did not directly address its vacate order in its statement to VTDigger, the spokesperson wrote that the foundation’s leaders recently “took the position that its staff are not Ben & Jerry’s employees, despite utilising Ben & Jerry’s offices and systems.”
Golden described the possible shutdown as an “enormous loss” that will not only affect the organizations that the foundation supports but also Ben & Jerry’s employees who “feel very proud of being a part of the foundation.”
“It’s been a really long year, so there’s been a lot of emotions — the whole gamut, as we like to say of the seven stages of grief. But I think at this point we’re sort of in the acceptance phase,” she said.
The Magnum spokesperson indicated that the work of the foundation will continue even if its leaders decide to cease operations at the end of the year, writing that the company is “firmly committed to funding a grant-giving foundation, supported by appropriate governance controls to ensure it is living by its values.”
But Cohen is not confident that Magnum will uphold the values of the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in the corporation’s continued philanthropic efforts.
“What are they going to fund? I have no idea. My guess is that they would not be looking to fund entities that are opposed to the status quo,” Cohen said.
The foundation’s leaders have pointed to its support of Migrant Justice during a period when the farmworker organization was considering a boycott of Ben & Jerry’s as an example of their commitment to social justice. After immigrant farmworkers raised concerns about working conditions at farms supplying Ben & Jerry’s, the company joined a program that collaborates with farmworkers to strive for fair working conditions.
Political activism has been central to the Ben & Jerry’s brand since its founding. As a part of the ongoing lawsuit, Ben & Jerry’s alleged in a May filing that Magnum has been undercutting its social justice mission in order to “censor, intimidate and purge” the company’s independent board, which Cohen said was created to defend its progressive values.
Three of the board’s members, including one who has been an outspoken critic of Israel, were removed late last year after the parent corporation introduced a new set of governance practices. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Magnum argues that it retains ultimate authority and the brand’s social mission must be nonpartisan.
As the lawsuit awaits a decision, Cohen, who is not a part of the suit, has created a campaign to “free Ben & Jerry’s,” amassing around 160,000 signers for its petition demanding that Magnum sell Ben & Jerry’s to a “group of values-aligned investors.”
“The very values-led business model that built Ben & Jerry’s into this amazing, phenomenal brand is the very thing that Magnum is currently destroying,” Cohen said.
-
Alabama5 minutes agoAlabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo kicks off on Dauphin Island
-
Alaska11 minutes agoNew Partnerships With State of Alaska & University of Alaska Fairbanks Expand on Critical Minerals & Energy Innovation – CleanTechnica
-
Arizona17 minutes agoThis Arizona city named among top 23 small US towns to visit
-
Arkansas23 minutes ago
Fayetteville, Arkansas, draws Razorback fans, cyclists, history buffs
-
California29 minutes agoThe San Andreas fault has gone ominously silent. Scientists fear when it finally snaps
-
Colorado35 minutes agoThree-quarters of Coloradans are worried they can’t afford to live here, poll finds
-
Connecticut41 minutes agoLove Food Names the Best Place for Ramen in Connecticut
-
Delaware47 minutes agoFamily of Kadir Skinner to sue Wilmington over police killing