Maryland Lawmakers Move to Codify Standards for Custody Evaluators

SB 222 Raises Questions About Accountability, Costs, and Judicial Authority

By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews

As the 2026 legislative session gets underway, lawmakers in Annapolis are once again taking aim at one of the most controversial corners of Maryland’s family court system: court-appointed custody evaluators.

Senate Bill 222 (SB 222), introduced January 14 and assigned to the Judicial Proceedings Committee, would formally write into statute a set of qualifications and training requirements for professionals appointed to evaluate children and parents in contested custody and visitation cases. The bill is sponsored by Senators Maryland Senator Mary Beth Carozza and Maryland Senator Christopher West.

Supporters say the measure is about protecting children and ensuring competence in high-stakes cases. Critics counter that the Judiciary already has rules on the books—and that codifying them could reduce flexibility, increase costs, and deepen family court delays.

What SB 222 Would Do

SB 222 would add a new §9-109 to Maryland’s Family Law Article, defining who may serve as a “custody evaluator” and under what conditions courts may appoint one.

Under the bill, custody evaluators would need to hold specific professional licenses—such as psychiatrist, psychologist, licensed clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, or licensed clinical professional counselor—and maintain all continuing education requirements.

Evaluators would also be required to complete training that conforms to guidelines established by the Administrative Office of the Courts, covering subjects such as domestic violence, child abuse, trauma, child development, disability issues, and family dynamics. Courts could waive certain requirements only for long-serving court employees or contractors with extensive prior experience and ongoing education.

In addition, the bill would bar courts from ordering a party to pay for an evaluation without notice and an opportunity to object—a procedural safeguard aimed at preventing surprise financial burdens.

If enacted, the law would take effect July 1, 2026.

A Shift From Court Rules to Statute

Currently, custody evaluations are governed primarily by Maryland Rule 9-205.3, adopted by the Maryland Supreme Court in 2022. That rule already requires evaluators to complete approved training programs and demonstrate competency in many of the same areas listed in SB 222.

The key difference is enforcement and permanence. Court rules can be revised through judicial rulemaking; statutes passed by the Maryland General Assembly carry the force of law and are harder to change.

Supporters argue that codification promotes consistency across counties and gives parents clearer grounds to challenge unqualified evaluators. In family court, evaluator reports often carry enormous weight—sometimes effectively deciding custody outcomes.

Familiar Criticism From the Judiciary

SB 222 closely resembles custody-evaluator bills introduced in several prior sessions, none of which became law. Those earlier efforts faced strong opposition from the Maryland Judiciary, which argued that legislation was unnecessary and risked constraining judges’ discretion.

Judicial critics have previously warned that statutory mandates could shrink the pool of available evaluators, particularly in rural areas, and increase costs or delays in already backlogged family courts. They also maintain that court rules allow for quicker updates as professional standards evolve.

Those same arguments are likely to resurface as SB 222 moves through committee.

Cost and Access Concerns

From a center-right perspective, SB 222 presents a familiar tradeoff. On one hand, clearer standards and notice protections may guard against arbitrary decisions and unchecked professional power. On the other, tighter licensing and training requirements may reduce competition, drive up evaluator fees, and make custody cases more expensive for families already under financial strain.

The bill does not cap evaluation costs or expand court-funded alternatives. Parents could still face multi-thousand-dollar evaluations, even if they now have a formal chance to object.

The Bigger Debate

At its core, SB 222 reflects a broader question confronting Maryland lawmakers: who should set and police standards in family court—the Legislature or the Judiciary?

For parents who feel burned by opaque evaluations and inconsistent practices, the bill represents a push for accountability. For judges and court administrators, it raises concerns about legislative overreach into judicial functions.

As hearings begin, SB 222 will test whether lawmakers believe existing court rules are enough—or whether family court oversight requires firmer statutory guardrails.

For now, the bill is in its earliest stages. But given the stakes for children, parents, and judicial authority, it is unlikely to pass quietly.

---

Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free

MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.

If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.

👉 Support Local Journalism

Have a tip or documents to share?

We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.

 👉 Submit a Tip