Family Law - Denial or Interference With Visitation Rights
HB0481 would change Maryland family law governing remedies when a court finds that a parent or other party has unjustifiably denied or interfered with court-ordered visitation. Under current law, a court may order visitation to be rescheduled and may also impose other remedies. This bill makes one remedy mandatory: the court must order additional visitation periods to make up for the denied time, rather than merely allowing that option.
The required makeup visitation must be of the same type as the visitation that was denied or interfered with, such as weekend, holiday, or summer visitation, and must be doubled in duration. The additional time must be scheduled at a time chosen by the other party and must occur within two years of the court’s finding. The bill also preserves the court’s ability to impose other remedies, including modifying custody or visitation terms to promote compliance and assessing costs or attorney’s fees against the party who interfered with visitation, so long as the court acts consistently with the child’s best interests.
The bill amends Section 9-105 of the Maryland Family Law Article by converting a discretionary visitation-remedy provision into a mandatory one when unjustified denial or interference is found. It would require courts to order specific compensatory visitation, while leaving intact the court’s broader authority to modify orders and award costs or counsel fees. The practical effect is to strengthen enforcement of visitation rights and create a more uniform remedy for interference with parenting time.
The available context suggests the bill is framed as a child-custody enforcement measure and appears to have been introduced without recorded opposition or committee debate in the materials provided. Its structure indicates support for stronger remedies against visitation interference, likely appealing to parents seeking reliable enforcement of custody orders. Because no vote tally or transcript is available, there is no documented public controversy in the provided record, but the bill’s mandatory makeup-visitation requirement could draw concern from those who prefer greater judicial discretion in family-law cases.
The main point of contention is the shift from judicial discretion to a mandatory remedy. Supporters are likely to favor requiring courts to order make-up visitation to deter interference and ensure meaningful enforcement of custody orders. Potential critics may argue that a rigid double-time rule could limit a judge’s ability to tailor relief to the child’s best interests or the circumstances of the violation, especially in cases where immediate make-up visitation may be impractical or disruptive.