Family Law - Children in Need of Assistance and Termination of Parental Rights (Right to Fight Act)
HB0048, titled the "Right to Fight Act," narrows when Maryland courts and local departments of social services may stop providing reunification efforts in child welfare cases. The bill repeals a provision that currently allows a local department to ask a juvenile court to find that reasonable efforts to reunify a child with a parent or guardian are not required solely because that parent or guardian previously lost parental rights to a sibling of the child. It also removes the related authority for a juvenile court to waive a local department’s service obligations on that basis.
The bill leaves in place the existing grounds for bypassing reunification efforts based on serious abuse, neglect, abandonment, violent crime, and related aggravated circumstances. It also preserves the juvenile court’s broader best-interest analysis in termination of parental rights and guardianship cases, including consideration of services offered, parental adjustment, the child’s ties and placement, and the likely impact of termination. The effective date is October 1, 2026.
HB0048 would amend provisions in the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and the Family Law Article governing child in need of assistance proceedings and termination of parental rights. Its main legal effect is to remove prior involuntary termination of parental rights to a sibling as an independent basis for dispensing with reunification efforts or waiving service obligations. As a result, local departments and juvenile courts would need to rely on the remaining statutory grounds, such as abuse, neglect, abandonment, or violent criminal conduct, when seeking to limit reunification services.
The bill’s title and structure suggest a child welfare measure aimed at strengthening parents’ ability to contest termination and preserve reunification opportunities. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, there is no direct evidence of debate outcomes or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a policy preference for keeping reunification efforts available unless more serious current circumstances justify ending them.
The central point of contention is likely whether a prior involuntary loss of parental rights to a sibling should continue to justify reduced reunification efforts in a later case. Supporters would likely argue that past termination alone should not automatically limit a parent’s chance to reunify with another child, especially if current circumstances have changed. Opponents would likely argue that prior termination is a meaningful indicator of risk and should remain a factor for child safety and permanency decisions. The bill does not alter the existing grounds tied to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or violent crime, so the dispute is focused on the sibling-termination trigger specifically.