HB497 creates a new set of rules in Maryland law for private transportation companies that specialize in transporting children to residential child care programs. The bill defines “residential child care program” broadly to include certain licensed residential settings, including wilderness programs, boot camps, boarding schools, and behavioral modification programs serving youth with behavioral, mental health, substance use, or disability-related needs, while excluding hospitals, detention facilities, youth correctional facilities, substance abuse treatment facilities, foster family homes, and other secure facilities.
The bill prohibits these youth transportation companies from using blindfolds, hoods, handcuffs, chains, straitjackets, and similar mechanical restraints when transporting children, except in narrow emergency circumstances involving an immediate and serious risk of harm and no less restrictive alternative. It also restricts the use of physical restraints to trained staff, bars their use as punishment, for convenience, or as a substitute for supervision, and limits restraint use to the duration of the imminent risk. In addition, the bill generally forbids picking up children for transport to a residential child care program between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., with an exception for companies under contract with the Department of Human Services.
HB497 also creates enforcement mechanisms. The Attorney General may bring an action for violations and seek injunctive relief and statutory damages of up to $1,000 for a first offense and $3,000 for later offenses. Individuals may also sue for restitution, compensatory damages, and up to $500 per violation, along with reasonable attorney’s fees if damages are awarded. The bill applies prospectively only and takes effect October 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill passed both chambers unanimously, with 137-0 in the House and 44-0 in the Senate, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on the need to regulate transport practices and prevent abuse or abduction risks involving children in residential care settings.
The main policy focus and likely point of concern is the balance between child safety and operational flexibility for transport providers and residential programs. The bill’s restrictions on restraints and overnight pickups are aimed at preventing coercive or dangerous transport practices, while the exception for DHS-contracted transport suggests an effort to preserve state-run or state-supervised operations. No recorded committee debate is available, and the unanimous votes suggest little public contention in the legislative process.
The bill adds a new Part III to Subtitle 7 of the Human Services Article governing transportation companies that move children to residential child care programs. It establishes statutory definitions, sets conduct standards for restraint use and pickup hours, and authorizes civil enforcement by both the Attorney General and private individuals. These provisions create new compliance obligations for specialized youth transport businesses and expand potential liability for violations, while leaving existing licensing and child welfare frameworks in place.
The bill’s legislative history shows overwhelming support. It passed the House and Senate unanimously, and there are no committee transcripts indicating opposition or significant amendment debate. The lack of recorded dissent suggests the measure was viewed as a child-protection and safety bill with broad appeal across party lines.
The central issue in the bill is how to prevent abusive or unsafe transport practices without unduly restricting legitimate transport operations. The strongest restrictions concern the use of blindfolds, hoods, mechanical restraints, and overnight pickups, which are likely intended to address concerns about coercive transport of vulnerable youth. The only notable carveout is for youth transportation companies under contract with the Department of Human Services, reflecting a policy choice to exempt certain state-contracted operations from the overnight pickup ban. No formal opposition is reflected in the available record.