Family Law – Child Custody Evaluators – Qualifications
Summary
SB 25 would add a new section to Maryland’s Family Law Article establishing minimum qualifications for court-appointed child custody evaluators. In contested custody or visitation cases, a court could order an assessment or appoint a custody evaluator to help determine a child’s health, safety, welfare, or best interests. The bill also requires that parties receive notice and an opportunity to object before a court orders an assessment cost to be paid by a party, in whole or in part.
The bill narrows who may serve as a custody evaluator by requiring the evaluator to be one of several licensed professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, clinical social workers, graduate/master social workers with specified experience, or clinical professional counselors, with out-of-state equivalents recognized if they have comparable licensure. It further requires training consistent with Administrative Office of the Courts guidelines, continuing education, experience with custody evaluations, and current knowledge of domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, trauma, family dynamics, child development, and the effects of divorce or separation on children and adults.
Impact
SB 25 would create a new statutory standard for custody evaluators in Maryland, limiting court appointments to professionals with specified licenses, training, and subject-matter experience. It would also add procedural protection by requiring notice and an opportunity to object before shifting assessment costs to a party. The practical effect would be to influence how family courts select evaluators and how custody/visitation assessments are funded in contested cases.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be a technical and child-protective reform aimed at improving the quality and consistency of custody evaluations rather than a broadly controversial policy change.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the stricter qualification requirements and the cost-allocation procedure. Supporters would likely view the bill as improving evaluator competence and protecting children and families in high-conflict cases, while critics could argue that the standards may reduce the pool of available evaluators, increase costs, or make it harder for courts to obtain timely assessments. The notice-and-objection requirement for assessment costs could also be debated by parties concerned about affordability or judicial discretion.