State Procurement - Apprenticeship Program Accountability and Completion
Summary
HB1165 amends Maryland family law to create a new process for addressing noncompliance with court-ordered child visitation schedules. If one parent fails to comply with a visitation order without just cause, the other parent may petition the court for an emergency reevaluation of the schedule. If the court finds the petition appropriate, it must hold an emergency hearing within 10 days of filing.
The bill directs the court to calculate the amount of visitation time that was improperly denied and to award make-up visitation time sufficient to compensate for the missed time. Any additional time must be scheduled in a way that is consistent with the child’s best interests, convenient for the petitioning parent, and at the expense of the noncompliant parent. The court must also order the noncompliant parent to pay court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing the visitation order.
Impact
The bill adds a new Section 9-109 to the Maryland Family Law Article and gives courts explicit authority to impose remedies for visitation interference, including expedited hearings, make-up visitation, fee shifting, parenting classes, community service, financial responsibility for maintaining visitation when parents live more than 20 miles apart, schedule modification, and other reasonable sanctions. It also allows contempt enforcement for violations of court orders issued under the new section. The practical effect is to strengthen enforcement of custody and visitation orders and provide a clearer statutory remedy for parents whose court-ordered parenting time is denied.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to favor stronger enforcement of visitation rights and quicker court intervention when orders are ignored. The bill is framed as a child-custody and visitation enforcement measure rather than a broad policy change, suggesting a remedial purpose aimed at reducing repeated violations and disputes.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s mandatory penalties and the court’s expanded authority to sanction a noncompliant parent. Requiring fee awards, make-up time, and expedited hearings may be viewed as necessary enforcement tools by supporters, while opponents could argue that the bill may increase litigation, create pressure in already contentious custody disputes, or limit judicial flexibility. The provision allowing schedule modification and other sanctions could also be debated because it gives courts broad discretion, though always subject to the child’s best interests.