Adult Protective Services – Modifications
HB 282 makes a series of changes to Maryland’s Adult Protective Services law in the Family Law Article. The bill revises key definitions used in adult protective services investigations, including “abuse,” “neglect,” “exploitation,” “self-neglect,” and “vulnerable adult,” and adds new definitions for “indicated,” “not indicated,” “undetermined,” “psychological harm,” “relationship of trust,” “risk of harm,” and “sexual abuse.” These changes narrow or clarify the circumstances under which conduct is reportable and how investigators classify findings.
The bill also updates the reporting process for suspected abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or exploitation of vulnerable adults. It expressly allows mandated reporters to submit reports through an online reporting portal in addition to telephone, written, direct communication, or the statewide hotline. It further revises investigation requirements so local departments must determine not only whether abuse or neglect occurred, but also whether the individual is at risk of harm, and must issue an “indicated,” “not indicated,” or “undetermined” finding within the statutory time frame. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB 282 amends Sections 14-101, 14-302, and 14-303 of the Maryland Family Law Article, changing the legal standards and procedures governing adult protective services. It expands and clarifies statutory definitions, especially by tying abuse, neglect, and exploitation to an individual in a “relationship of trust” with the vulnerable adult and by adding psychological harm and sexual abuse as express concepts within the APS framework. It also modernizes reporting by authorizing online submissions and requires local departments to make formal investigative findings, which affects local departments of social services, law enforcement, health practitioners, human service workers, and other agencies involved in APS cases.
The available record suggests the bill was noncontroversial and ultimately enacted, as it was approved by the Governor and became Chapter 652. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence of organized opposition in the materials supplied. The overall tone of the legislation appears administrative and protective, focused on improving reporting and investigation procedures for vulnerable adults.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Based on the text, any potential debate would likely center on the scope of the new definitions—particularly the “relationship of trust” limitation, the addition of psychological harm and sexual abuse, and the requirement that investigators determine whether a vulnerable adult is at risk of harm. Another possible issue is the operational impact on local departments and mandated reporters, especially the new online reporting option and the formalized finding categories, but no opposition or competing viewpoints are shown in the record.