Criminal Law - Interference of Custody Orders - Penalties
HB 942 creates a new criminal law offense for knowingly and willfully interfering with a court custody order in Maryland. The bill prohibits a person from enticing or persuading a minor away from, or withholding a minor from, the minor’s lawful custodian, a court-appointed guardian, or a person lawfully standing in loco parentis, where the custody order is one over which a Maryland court has jurisdiction.
The bill establishes a graduated penalty structure for repeated violations. A first offense results in a written warning, a second offense carries a civil fine of up to $250, a third offense a civil fine of up to $500, a fourth offense becomes a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days’ imprisonment, and a fifth or subsequent offense becomes a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. The bill also specifies what information must be included in the written warning, including the violator’s identifying information, the date and time of the violation, a description of the conduct, and notice of possible future penalties.
HB 942 would add a new section to the Criminal Law Article, creating a specific enforcement mechanism for violations of custody orders and expanding the range of consequences from warnings and civil fines to misdemeanor criminal penalties. It would affect parents, guardians, custodians, and others involved in child custody arrangements, as well as law enforcement officers responsible for issuing warnings and documenting violations. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026, and would give courts and police a clearer statutory basis for responding to repeated interference with custody orders.
Based on the bill text and the limited available context, the measure appears to be framed as a child-custody enforcement and public-safety bill rather than a controversial policy change. There are no recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts indicating organized opposition or support, and the bill had only reached a House hearing stage in the available history. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to deter repeated interference through escalating penalties, which may appeal to those concerned with protecting custody rights and child welfare.
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s criminalization of conduct that may arise in emotionally charged family disputes, especially where parties disagree about custody arrangements or the scope of a court order. Critics could be concerned that the law may be used in domestic conflicts or that misdemeanor penalties are too harsh for conduct that begins with a warning and civil fines. Supporters are likely to emphasize the need to protect lawful custodians and enforce court orders when a minor is intentionally taken or withheld. No specific stakeholder positions are provided in the available record.