Maryland Lawmakers Push “Child Protection” Bills—But Gaps in Custody Law Remain Unaddressed

Maryland lawmakers are advancing a new round of child protection legislation during the 2026 General Assembly session, citing the need to strengthen safeguards against abuse and neglect. This bill highlights growing legislative momentum around expanded reporting requirements and earlier state intervention in suspected cases of harm.

But a closer look at Maryland’s existing family law proposals raises a more complicated question: Is the General Assembly expanding child welfare authority faster than it is improving the quality and accountability of the system itself?

Expansion Without Precision

Maryland’s child protection framework already grants broad discretion to courts, evaluators, and agencies operating under civil—not criminal—standards. Evidence rules are relaxed, fact-finding is often informal, and judicial discretion is wide.

The latest proposals largely continue that trend. They emphasize:

• Increased reporting obligations
• Broader intervention authority
• Earlier involvement by state systems

What they do not emphasize to the same degree are tighter evidentiary thresholds, clearer statutory definitions of harm, or stronger due-process protections for families once the system intervenes.

That imbalance is not hypothetical. It is visible in parallel custody legislation already before lawmakers.

SB222 / HB0137: A Case Study in Legislative Blind Spots

One bill frequently cited as a reform measure is SB222, cross-filed in the House as HB0137, which addresses qualifications for child custody evaluators.

The bill is sponsored by Mary Beth Carozza and Chris West, with House sponsorship by Delegates Kaufmann, Airkan, Foley, and Taylor.

Despite being introduced in multiple legislative sessions—five iterations to date—the bill continues to omit a core competency increasingly central to custody disputes: psychological abuse.

Why the Omission Matters

Custody evaluators play an outsized role in Maryland family courts. Their reports often shape:

• Custody and parenting-time determinations
• Access to children during litigation
• Long-term family structure

Yet under SB222, evaluators are required to have experience in “one or more” listed competency areas. Not only does this allow partial qualification, but psychological abuse—covering coercive control, emotional manipulation, intimidation, and alienation—is not included in the statutory knowledge set at all.

This is notable because psychological abuse is among the most frequently alleged harms in high-conflict custody cases and is widely recognized in clinical literature as having serious long-term impacts on children.

Legislative Consequences of a Narrow Definition of Harm

By excluding psychological abuse from evaluator qualifications, Maryland law effectively narrows what the system is structurally capable of recognizing.

That has downstream effects:

• Harm that does not present physically is more easily dismissed
• Protective behaviors may be mischaracterized as “conflict”
• Abusive dynamics can be reframed as personality disputes

At the same time, broader child protection bills increase the likelihood of system involvement—placing greater weight on professional assessments that may lack training in the most common non-physical forms of harm.

Due Process Remains the Missing Counterweight

What is largely absent from the current legislative push is a corresponding effort to strengthen:

• Evidentiary standards before intervention
• Timelines for dismissal of unsubstantiated claims
• Accountability for erroneous or biased evaluations
• Remedies for families harmed by system error

Once a family enters Maryland’s child welfare or custody system, correction is rare. Records persist. Judicial deference compounds. Appeals are costly and slow.

Expanding intervention authority without addressing these structural realities risks compounding—not correcting—existing weaknesses.

A Policy Debate Maryland Has Yet to Finish

Supporters of expanded child protection measures argue that earlier intervention saves lives and prevents tragedy. Critics counter that poorly calibrated systems can cause lasting harm when authority outpaces precision.

Both claims can be true.

But as Maryland lawmakers consider additional child protection bills, SB222/HB0137 illustrates a central unresolved issue: the state is expanding the system’s reach without modernizing its understanding of harm or raising professional standards accordingly.

Until that gap is addressed, legislative efforts may strengthen the appearance of protection—while leaving key vulnerabilities untouched.

---

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