Two Years to Maybe Make It Right? Maryland’s SB481 Raises Red Flags for Parents Facing Custodial Interference

By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews

Maryland lawmakers are advancing Senate Bill 481 (SB481) as a reform to address denial or interference with court-ordered visitation. The bill amends Family Law § 9-105 to require courts to order additional visitation when interference is found — doubling the time and allowing the wronged parent to select scheduling within a two-year window.

At first glance, that sounds like a firm correction to a longstanding problem.

But the deeper issue is not scheduling.

It is enforcement.

And SB481 risks becoming what many parents already fear: an enforcement illusion.

---

“Shall” — With an Escape Hatch

SB481 replaces permissive language with mandatory language. Courts “shall” order additional visitation when unjustified interference is found.

However, that directive is still wrapped in the familiar family court qualifier:

“In a manner consistent with the best interests of the child.”

That phrase governs nearly every custody dispute in Maryland — and it also provides the widest runway for judicial discretion.

In practice, this means a court could:

• Acknowledge interference
• Characterize it as minor
• Delay implementation
• Reduce the ordered make-up time
• Or decline aggressive enforcement due to “stability concerns”

Without strict timelines, consequences, or mandatory follow-through, the word “shall” risks becoming aspirational.

---

The Real Problem Is Not Authority — It’s Accountability

Maryland courts already have authority under § 9-105 to order make-up visitation. The historical complaint from parents has not been lack of statutory tools.

It has been:

• Delayed hearings
• Soft enforcement
• Inconsistent remedies
• Minimal consequences for repeat interference
• And discretionary rulings that dilute findings

SB481 strengthens language, but it does not create enforcement triggers.

There is:

• No automatic contempt provision
• No presumption of attorney’s fees
• No escalating sanctions for repeat violations
• No deadline for implementation
• No reporting requirement
• No custody modification presumption after multiple findings

A parent could win the finding — and still lose meaningful relief.

That is not reform.

That is optics.

---

The Two-Year Window Adds to the Problem

The bill permits make-up visitation to occur within two years after a court determination.

Two years is not procedural housekeeping.

Two years can entrench alienation.
Two years can reshape a child’s perceptions.
Two years can allow interference to calcify.

If enforcement is discretionary and implementation can stretch over years, the deterrent value of the statute weakens dramatically.

Justice delayed is not just justice denied.

In family court, it can become justice dissolved.

---

What Real Enforcement Would Look Like

If lawmakers want SB481 to function as a true deterrent, the bill needs structural teeth.

Here is proposed amendment language that would materially strengthen enforcement:

---

Proposed Amendment Language (For Consideration)

1. Expedited Enforcement Hearing

A hearing on alleged denial or interference with visitation shall be scheduled within 30 days of filing unless good cause is shown on the record.

---

2. Mandatory Implementation Timeline

Any additional visitation ordered under this section shall commence within 45 days of the court’s finding absent extraordinary circumstances stated in writing.

---

3. Presumption of Attorney’s Fees

Upon a finding of unjustified denial or interference, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party unless the court states specific findings on the record as to why such award would be unjust.

---

4. Escalating Consequences

A second finding of unjustified denial or interference within a 24-month period shall create a rebuttable presumption in favor of modification of custody or primary decision-making authority.

---

5. Written Findings Requirement

If the court declines to order additional visitation as provided under this section, the court shall issue written findings detailing the reasons for deviation.

---

6. Shortened Enforcement Window

Strike “within 2 years” and replace with “within 180 days of the court’s determination, absent extraordinary circumstances.”

---

These are not radical provisions.

They are accountability mechanisms.

Without them, enforcement remains dependent on the very discretion many parents argue has failed them.

---

The Deadline to Testify Has Passed — But the Debate Has Not

The formal testimony deadline for SB481 has passed.

However, parents and concerned citizens can still:

• Contact members of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee
• Write their local delegates and senators
• Submit written position statements directly to legislative offices
• Request that amendment language be considered in committee or on the floor

Legislation evolves throughout the session. Amendments are introduced after hearings. Conversations continue behind the scenes.

Public input does not end at the portal deadline.

---

The Larger Question

Is SB481 meant to change outcomes — or change headlines?

Maryland families do not need symbolic reassurance.

They need enforceable rights.

If interference is found, enforcement should be swift, structured, and predictable.

Otherwise, “shall” remains conditional.

And reform remains theoretical.

For parents navigating the system in real time, theoretical reform is not enough.

---

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

Need background research, policy analysis, or legislative clarity?

MDBayNews offers independent research and legislative analysis services, including bill summaries, issue memos, district-level context, and fact-checked opposition research. This work is informational and non-advocacy in nature.

Independent · Confidential · Non-coordinated
Candidate Services | Legislative Services | Sponsored Profiles

Want more?

For deeper analysis, strategies, playbooks, deep dives, and more, subscribe to our premium newsletter, The Blue Heron.