Family Law - Incapacitated or Protected Persons - Petition for Visitation
HB 134 creates a new Title 15 in the Family Law Article governing visitation for alleged incapacitated or protected persons. It states a legislative intent that adults generally have the right to visitation with people they choose, unless a court orders otherwise or the person is incapacitated and the visitation is not in that person’s best interest. The bill establishes a rebuttable presumption that visitation is in the best interest of certain close relatives and other interested parties, including spouses, adult children, adult grandchildren, parents, and adult siblings.
The bill authorizes those listed persons to petition a court for reasonable visitation when visitation has been unreasonably denied or interfered with. The petition must be verified, identify the petitioner and the person alleged to have interfered, and include agreement to possible background checks, judgment searches, or mental health screening or evaluation. The bill also requires service of the petition on the alleged incapacitated or protected person, relevant counsel, guardians, decision makers, medical providers, and any person accused of interference. If the alleged person objects, the burden shifts to the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the objection was not based on reliable evidence.
HB 134 also sets out circumstances that can rebut the visitation presumption, including abuse, neglect, protective orders, the wishes of the protected person, medical recommendations, lack of qualifying status as an interested party, or evidence that visitation would harm the person’s health or mental well-being. Courts may impose restrictions such as limits on time and frequency or monitored visitation at the petitioner’s expense, and may assess costs or attorney’s fees for bad-faith petitions or unjustified interference. The bill provides immunity from civil liability for authorized decision makers and health care facilities that deny or restrict visitation in good faith or pursuant to a court order.
In addition, the bill requires an authorized decision maker to provide certain information within 72 hours of a written request from an interested party, including the person’s residence or facility location, funeral arrangements, or burial/disposition information if the person has died. The act would take effect October 1, 2026, and would amend Maryland law by adding a new statutory framework for court-ordered visitation involving incapacitated or protected adults.
Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears neutral to supportive based on the bill’s structure: it is framed as expanding family access while preserving court oversight and safety protections. Likely points of contention are the scope of who may petition, the presumption favoring visitation, the burden-shifting standard when the protected person objects, and the potential for conflict with guardians, health care facilities, or authorized decision makers who believe visitation is not in the person’s best interest.
The bill would add a new Title 15, “Visitation,” to the Maryland Family Law Article and create a specific court process for visitation disputes involving alleged incapacitated or protected persons. It would affect guardians, agents under advance directives, surrogate decision makers, attorneys-in-fact, health care facilities, and family members or other interested parties by defining who may seek visitation, when visitation may be presumed appropriate, and what procedures and remedies apply. It also grants civil immunity to decision makers and facilities acting in good faith or under court order, and authorizes courts to impose conditions, costs, and sanctions in certain cases.
No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded public debate to measure directly. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to balance family visitation rights with protections for vulnerable adults, suggesting a generally sympathetic or reform-oriented intent rather than a punitive one. The inclusion of safeguards such as clear-and-convincing evidence standards, court discretion, and immunity for good-faith restrictions indicates an effort to address likely concerns from caregivers and facilities while supporting family access.
The main points of contention are likely to be the presumption that visitation is in the best interest of certain relatives and interested parties, and the ability of those persons to petition even when an authorized decision maker has limited access. Guardians, health care facilities, and decision makers may object to court intervention, especially where there are concerns about abuse, neglect, prior conflict, or the protected person’s expressed wishes. Another likely issue is the burden-shifting rule when the alleged incapacitated or protected person objects, as well as the bill’s allowance for monitored visitation, cost shifting, and sanctions, which could be viewed as either necessary protections or as barriers to access depending on the stakeholder.