HB1107 revises Maryland juvenile confinement rules to sharply limit when minors may be placed in restrictive housing in correctional facilities. It prohibits placement for discipline, punishment, administrative convenience, retaliation, or staffing shortages, and allows restrictive housing only as a temporary measure when a facility’s managing official finds by clear and convincing evidence that there is an immediate and substantial risk of physical harm or facility security, no other reasonable means to address the risk, and the placement is used only as long as necessary under the least restrictive conditions practicable. The bill also requires prompt mental health screening within one hour, access to needed mental health services, a maximum restrictive-housing period of six hours, and a plan to return the minor to general population or another appropriate setting as soon as possible.
The bill also changes rules for detaining, confining, and transporting children in custody. It bars children, including those under adult criminal court jurisdiction, from being held where they can see or hear incarcerated adults, prohibits holding a child in an adult correctional facility, and requires that children not be transported with adults charged with or convicted of crimes. For youth in the custody of the Department of Juvenile Services who are approaching age 18, the department must notify the sentencing court and State’s Attorney within 180 days, and the court must hold a hearing and enter an order for transfer to an adult correctional facility, facility for youthful offenders if applicable, or another lawful disposition when the child turns 18.
The bill amends several statutes, including provisions in the Correctional Services Article, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, and Criminal Procedure Article. It removes prior language that allowed broader use of restrictive housing and modifies detention rules pending transfer jurisdiction determinations. It also preserves a minor’s ability to request restrictive housing and revoke that request at any time, while requiring access to basic services, recreation, education, and programming unless doing so would create a safety risk.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at strengthening protections for juveniles in custody and reducing harmful isolation practices. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill’s content, likely points of contention would include whether the six-hour cap and strict evidentiary standard are operationally workable for correctional facilities, how the new mental health and programming requirements would be implemented, and whether the transfer procedures for youth turning 18 appropriately balance public safety, facility management, and juvenile rehabilitation.
HB1107 would materially narrow the authority of correctional facilities to use restrictive housing on minors and would impose new procedural, mental health, and documentation requirements. It would also alter juvenile detention and transport rules by separating children from adult incarcerated populations, limiting transport with adults, and creating a mandatory notification-and-hearing process when a youth in Department of Juvenile Services custody approaches age 18. The bill would affect correctional facilities, the Department of Juvenile Services, sentencing courts, State’s Attorneys, and minors held in juvenile or adult criminal custody.
No committee transcripts or votes are available in the provided record, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize. The bill’s sponsors and subject matter suggest a reform-oriented, child-protection approach focused on limiting solitary confinement and improving treatment of detained youth. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means any assessment of sentiment is based only on the bill’s policy direction, not on expressed legislative debate.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s strict limits on restrictive housing, especially the requirement of clear and convincing evidence, the six-hour maximum, and the mandate for rapid mental health screening and services. Correctional administrators may view the bill as constraining their ability to respond to safety and security incidents, while juvenile justice advocates are likely to support the tighter safeguards and separation from adult inmates. The age-18 transfer process and prohibition on housing youth with adults may also raise practical questions about facility capacity, placement options, and implementation costs.