Center for Firearm Violence Prevention and Intervention - Resources, Tools, and Educational Materials
HB 223 would amend Maryland’s child welfare investigation law to require local departments of social services or law enforcement agencies to give parents or caretakers an oral and written notice at the time of initial contact during a child abuse or neglect investigation. The notice would explain several rights and limits, including that the parent is not required to let investigators enter the home absent a court order or other legal authority, is not required to speak without an opportunity to consult an attorney, is not required to allow interviews or examinations of a child unless otherwise required by law, and is not required to sign documents or submit to certain tests or evaluations unless ordered by a court. It also warns that exercising these rights may have serious consequences, including a petition to remove the child from the home.
The bill further requires the notice to be written clearly, in a language the parent or caretaker can understand, and to be read aloud if the person cannot read or requests it. Investigators would have to ask the parent or caretaker to sign the notice, document any refusal, sign as a witness, and provide a copy of the signed notice at the first face-to-face contact. If an investigator fails to comply with these notice requirements, evidence obtained in violation of the subsection would be excluded from judicial or administrative proceedings arising from the investigation.
In addition to the notice provisions, the bill reorganizes and restates existing child abuse and neglect investigation procedures in Section 5-706 of the Family Law Article, including timelines for seeing the child, assessing safety, completing investigations, reporting findings, and handling alternative response cases. It preserves the existing framework for investigations, alternative response programs, record retention, and reporting obligations, while adding the new parent/caretaker notice and exclusionary rule. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact would be to change how child protective services and law enforcement begin abuse and neglect investigations, creating a formal advisement of parental rights and procedural protections at the outset. It would affect local departments of social services, law enforcement agencies, parents and caretakers, children subject to investigations, and courts or administrative bodies that rely on evidence gathered during those investigations. It also could affect admissibility of evidence and the conduct of interviews, home entry, and related investigative steps under Maryland family law.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, but the bill’s sponsor withdrew it in the House. Based on the text, the measure appears aimed at strengthening due process and notice protections for families, while the main point of tension is likely the balance between parental rights and the state’s child safety and investigative authority. The bill explicitly acknowledges that refusing cooperation may lead to serious consequences, suggesting concern that the notice could affect investigators’ ability to quickly secure child safety and gather evidence in abuse and neglect cases.
HB 223 would amend § 5-706 of the Maryland Family Law Article to add mandatory notice requirements for child abuse and neglect investigations and to exclude evidence obtained in violation of those requirements from related judicial or administrative proceedings. It would also restate and renumber existing investigation and alternative response provisions, but the principal legal change is the creation of explicit parental/caretaker rights advisements and an evidentiary sanction for noncompliance. The bill would directly affect local departments of social services, law enforcement agencies, State’s Attorneys, and families involved in child protective services investigations.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. The text suggests the bill was framed as a family-rights and notice measure, likely appealing to supporters of due process and transparency in child welfare investigations. At the same time, the inclusion of warnings about possible child removal and the exclusion of evidence indicates an awareness that the proposal could complicate investigations, which is the likely source of institutional concern.
The main point of contention is the tension between protecting parents’ procedural rights and preserving investigators’ ability to act quickly to protect children. Supporters would likely emphasize notice, informed consent, access to counsel, and limits on home entry and interviews; opponents or concerned agencies would likely focus on the risk that mandatory warnings, refusal rights, and evidence exclusion could impede investigations, delay child protection, and create litigation over compliance. The bill itself signals this tension by stating that exercising the listed rights may have serious consequences, including possible removal of the child.