Family Law - Equity Courts - Care and Custody of Children (Uniform Nondiscrimination in Treatment and Evidence (UNITE) Act)
HB0923, the Uniform Nondiscrimination in Treatment and Evidence (UNITE) Act, addresses how Maryland equity courts handle custody and guardianship matters involving immigrant children. The bill states a legislative intent that courts should protect against discriminatory practices, implicit bias, and procedural disparities in child-custody proceedings, especially where those disparities could affect a child’s stability, long-term welfare, or ability to seek Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS).
The bill specifically requires equity courts to apply the same standards, evidentiary rules, and procedures—including the same documents used in court—when deciding custody or guardianship for an immigrant child as they would for a child who is a U.S. citizen. It does not change the basic jurisdiction of equity courts over custody, guardianship, visitation, support, adoption, paternity, or related family-law matters, but it adds a new statutory directive focused on equal treatment in proceedings involving immigrant children.
HB0923 would amend Maryland Family Law by adding a new section to the equity-court jurisdiction statute. Its practical effect is to require uniform treatment in custody and guardianship proceedings for immigrant children, including cases tied to SIJS factual findings under federal immigration law. The bill would not alter juvenile court or criminal court jurisdiction, but it would guide equity courts to use the same evidentiary standards and procedural requirements for immigrant children as for citizen children, potentially affecting family-law litigants, attorneys, and courts handling immigration-related custody petitions.
The available context suggests the bill was introduced and referred to the Judiciary Committee, with no recorded votes or committee testimony provided in the materials. Based on the text, the bill appears to be framed as a fairness and anti-discrimination measure, with a clear policy goal of ensuring equal treatment for immigrant children in custody and guardianship proceedings. There is no direct evidence in the provided record of organized support or opposition, but the bill’s emphasis on nondiscrimination and procedural consistency indicates a generally protective and reform-oriented posture.
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s application to immigrant children and SIJS-related proceedings, where some may view the measure as necessary to prevent bias and ensure access to relief, while others may question whether it changes court practice or imposes new procedural obligations on equity courts. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s use of broad language about discriminatory practices, implicit bias, and procedural disparities, which could raise concerns about judicial discretion, evidentiary requirements, or implementation in family-court settings. No specific opposing arguments or supporters are identified in the provided materials.