Child in Need of Assistance - Proceedings - Child's Right to be Present
HB1290 creates a new provision in Maryland’s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article giving a child who is the subject of a Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) case the right to be present at the proceeding. The bill applies to juvenile court CINA proceedings, which involve children alleged to have been abused, neglected, or otherwise in need of court intervention because a parent, guardian, or custodian cannot or will not provide proper care.
The bill also authorizes the court to exclude the child in limited circumstances. A child may be excluded if the child’s attorney determines the child’s presence is not in the child’s best interest and notifies the court that the child has waived the right to be present, or if the court makes findings on the record that the child’s presence is not in the child’s best interest. Before excluding the child, the court must consider less restrictive alternatives such as adjusting the court schedule, allowing remote participation, providing trauma-informed support, or limiting the child’s time in the courtroom. The bill also clarifies that the child’s attorney may not waive the child’s right to be present at a required consultation under § 3-823(j).
In practical terms, the bill changes state juvenile court procedure by recognizing the child as a participant in CINA proceedings rather than only the subject of the case. It adds a new statutory section, § 3-831, to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and takes effect October 1, 2026. The bill does not change the substantive standards for finding a child to be in need of assistance, but it does change how those cases are conducted and how courts must handle a child’s attendance and exclusion.
The available voting history suggests strong support: the House passed the bill on third reading unanimously, 128-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials. The committee report was favorable with amendments, indicating some refinement occurred, but the overall sentiment in the legislative record provided is clearly supportive.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between a child’s right to participate and the need to protect the child from harm or emotional distress during court proceedings. The bill addresses that concern by allowing exclusion when the child’s presence is not in the child’s best interest, while requiring the court to consider alternatives first. Another possible issue is the role of the child’s attorney in waiving presence, since the bill limits that authority in certain required consultations.
HB1290 amends Maryland juvenile court procedure by adding a new section to the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article establishing a child’s right to attend CINA proceedings, subject to court-ordered exclusion in specified circumstances. It affects children involved in abuse, neglect, developmental disability, or mental-disorder cases, as well as attorneys, judges, and court staff handling juvenile matters. The bill requires courts to consider less restrictive alternatives before excluding a child and preserves the child’s right to be present at a required consultation under § 3-823(j).
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in the materials provided. It passed the House unanimously, and the committee report was favorable with amendments, suggesting the legislature viewed the measure as a constructive procedural reform. The absence of recorded transcript debate limits insight into detailed arguments, but the voting record indicates a generally positive sentiment toward increasing child participation in CINA cases while preserving judicial discretion to protect the child’s best interests.
The central tension in HB1290 is between empowering children to participate in proceedings that directly affect them and protecting them from potential trauma or other harms caused by courtroom attendance. Supporters are likely focused on the child’s voice, transparency, and procedural fairness, while any concerns would center on whether attendance could be emotionally burdensome or developmentally inappropriate in some cases. The bill resolves this by allowing exclusion only after attorney input or judicial findings and by requiring consideration of alternatives such as remote participation and trauma-informed support.