HB0890, the “Know Before They Knock” Family Right to Notice Act, amends Maryland’s child abuse and neglect investigation procedures in Family Law § 5-706. The bill requires local departments of social services or law enforcement, when making the required on-site contact in a suspected abuse or neglect case, to attempt an interview with the child’s parent or legal guardian rather than the child’s caretaker. It also requires that, at the time of initial contact with the parent or guardian during an investigation, the agency provide both oral and written notice of specified rights and limitations.
The notice provisions are extensive. They inform parents or guardians that they are not required to let investigators enter the home without a court order or other legal authority, are entitled to know the allegations being investigated, may consult an attorney before speaking or signing documents, are not required to allow child interviews or examinations except as otherwise required by law, and are not required to submit to drug, alcohol, or mental health testing unless ordered by a court. The bill also requires the Department of Human Services to create a system to document proof that notice was given, and it specifies that the notice must be written in clear, simple language and read aloud if the parent or guardian cannot read or requests it.
In addition to the notice changes, the bill makes conforming edits throughout the child protective services statute to replace references to a child’s “primary caretaker” with “legal guardian” in the alternative response provisions. The underlying investigation framework remains in place, including the timelines for seeing the child, completing investigations, reporting findings, and using alternative response for low-risk reports. The bill does not eliminate existing investigative authority, but it adds procedural safeguards and documentation requirements for agency contact with families.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add new parental-rights notice obligations to child abuse and neglect investigations and to change the required focus of initial on-site interviews from caretakers to parents or legal guardians. It would affect local departments of social services, law enforcement agencies, and the Department of Human Services, which would need to train staff, provide standardized notices, and track compliance. Families subject to investigations would gain explicit statutory notice of rights, while agencies would face additional procedural and recordkeeping duties.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s framing. The title and text suggest a pro-parent-rights approach intended to increase transparency and limit surprise during child welfare investigations. The main point of contention is likely the balance between parental due process and child safety: supporters would view the bill as protecting families from coercive or unclear investigative practices, while opponents may worry that mandatory notice of rights could make it harder for investigators to secure cooperation, interview children promptly, or intervene quickly in dangerous situations.
The bill amends Maryland Family Law § 5-706 governing child abuse and neglect investigations. It adds a new requirement that investigators provide oral and written notice of specified parental or guardian rights at initial contact, requires documentation of that notice, and changes certain on-site interview language from a child’s caretaker to the child’s parent or legal guardian. It also makes conforming terminology changes in the alternative response provisions, affecting local departments of social services, law enforcement agencies, and the Department of Human Services.
No votes or committee testimony were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to measure directly. Based on the bill text and title, the measure appears to be framed positively by its sponsors as a family-rights and transparency bill. The likely general sentiment among supporters is that parents and guardians should be informed of their rights during child welfare investigations, while likely critics would be concerned about any added procedural barriers to prompt child protection.
The central policy tension is between parental notice and due process on one hand, and child safety and investigative effectiveness on the other. Supporters are likely to emphasize the right to counsel, the right to refuse entry absent legal authority, and the need for clear notice before families are asked to cooperate. Potential opponents may argue that telling families too much too early could reduce cooperation, complicate interviews, or delay urgent protective action in abuse and neglect cases. The bill also raises operational concerns for agencies that would need to standardize notices, document compliance, and train staff statewide.