Child Exploitation Material - Civil and Criminal Actions (Safe Kids Act)
HB0924 would add a new section to Maryland’s Family Law article governing when a court may appoint a custody evaluator in contested custody or visitation matters. The bill authorizes a court, on motion of a party or child’s counsel or on its own initiative, to order an assessment to help evaluate a child’s health, safety, welfare, or best interests, and to appoint a custody evaluator for a home study or evaluation of a specific issue. It also requires notice and an opportunity to object before a court can allocate assessment costs to a party.
The core of the bill is a set of minimum qualifications for custody evaluators. Eligible evaluators would include certain licensed physicians, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers, graduate or master social workers with specified experience, and clinical professional counselors, including equivalent out-of-state licensees. In addition, evaluators must have completed approved training, meet continuing education requirements, have experience observing or performing custody evaluations, and possess current knowledge of issues such as domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, child sexual abuse, trauma, family conflict, child development, and the effects of divorce or separation on children and adults.
The bill would create a new statutory standard in Maryland family law limiting who may serve as a court-appointed custody evaluator and what training and experience they must have. It would affect courts handling custody and visitation disputes, as well as professionals who seek appointment in those cases, by narrowing eligibility to specified licensed mental health and social work professionals with defined qualifications. It would also add procedural protection by requiring notice and an opportunity to object before assessment costs are imposed on a party.
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears aimed at improving the quality and reliability of custody evaluations in sensitive family cases, suggesting a generally protective and child-focused policy intent. No committee transcript or vote record is available here to show organized support or opposition, but the bill’s emphasis on professional qualifications, training, and child safety indicates a likely favorable reception among those concerned with best-interest determinations in custody disputes.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the bill’s restriction of who may be appointed as a custody evaluator and the added cost and procedural requirements. Parties favoring broader judicial discretion may object that the bill limits the pool of available evaluators, especially in less populated areas or where specialized professionals are scarce. Others may support the bill’s tighter standards as necessary to ensure evaluators are properly trained in domestic violence, abuse, trauma, and child development, and to prevent unqualified assessments from influencing custody outcomes.