Child Advocacy Centers - Continuity of Care Standards for Health Care Professionals and Reports of Violations
HB 1292 revises Maryland’s child advocacy center law to add more detailed statewide standards for centers that provide medical or mental health services to children. It requires the Maryland Statewide Organization for Child Advocacy Centers to set standards that include, among other things, multidisciplinary teams, forensic interviewing practices, victim support, medical and mental health services, and case review and tracking. The bill specifically adds new requirements that any employed or contracted medical or mental health professional must be licensed or certified, if applicable, and must practice within the scope of that license, certification, or lawful supervision.
The bill also requires each child advocacy center to adopt a continuity-of-care plan. That plan must address how children and parents or guardians are notified when a provider changes, and it must allow, when clinically appropriate and safe, a former provider to help transfer care through a termination session. In addition, centers must report certain complaints resulting in a Child Protective Services finding based on the statewide standards to the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy for possible referral to the Attorney General. The Office is also authorized to provide technical-assistance grants to help centers implement the standards and must publish annual information about standards, compliance, and complaint resolution beginning in 2028.
HB 1292 amends Criminal Procedure § 11-928 and expands the regulatory framework governing child advocacy centers in Maryland. It creates new statewide compliance expectations for centers, especially those offering medical and behavioral health services, and ties those expectations to professional licensure, scope-of-practice rules, continuity-of-care procedures, complaint reporting, and public reporting by the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy. The bill affects child advocacy centers, the Maryland Statewide Organization for Child Advocacy Centers, health professionals working in those centers, and state oversight entities including the Office of Crime Prevention and Policy, Child Protective Services, and potentially the Attorney General.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support. It passed the House unanimously on third reading, 128-0, indicating strong agreement with its child-protection and care-continuity goals. The available context does not show recorded opposition in committee or on the floor, and the bill advanced with amendments rather than controversy.
The main policy issues reflected in the bill are operational rather than partisan: how to ensure child advocacy centers meet professional standards, how to manage transitions between medical or mental health providers without disrupting care, and how much reporting and public transparency should be required. Potential points of concern include the administrative burden on centers, confidentiality limits under HIPAA and other laws, and the practical challenges of implementing licensure, supervision, and complaint-reporting requirements across centers with different staffing models. No specific opposing arguments are recorded in the provided discussion materials.