Family Investment Program - Temporary Cash Assistance - Good Cause and Adequate Reason Exceptions
HB1490 revises Maryland’s Family Investment Program (FIP) rules for temporary cash assistance when an applicant or recipient does not cooperate with child support enforcement. The bill prohibits the Department of Human Services from denying, reducing, or terminating assistance when a person has either “good cause” or an “adequate reason” for noncooperation, and it directs the Secretary of Human Services and the Child Support Enforcement Agency Administration to use specified criteria in making those determinations. The measure also requires the department to inform applicants and recipients about child support pass-through/disregard, the right to claim good cause, the process for doing so, and the availability of staff assistance.
The bill sets out detailed circumstances that qualify as good cause, including risk of physical or emotional harm, rape or incest, pending adoption, concern that cooperation would harm family relationships, or other situations not in the child’s best interest. It also identifies “adequate reason” circumstances beyond the individual’s control, such as incorrect mailing addresses, natural disaster, civil disorder, critical illness, family crisis, and travel during notice or appointment periods. The bill further allows oral statements to establish good cause, bars the department from requiring third-party verification or notarization, and requires assistance in documenting claims. It also provides that a person who lacks requested child support information may attest to that fact and be treated as cooperating.
HB1490 amends the Human Services Article, especially § 5-308 and related provisions governing FIP eligibility and sanctions. It changes the administrative process for child support cooperation determinations and limits when temporary cash assistance can be reduced or terminated. The bill also preserves eligibility for medical assistance and food stamps even if cash assistance is reduced or stopped, so long as program requirements are otherwise met. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill received strong bipartisan support in both chambers, passing the House 99-29 and the Senate 35-12, and it was ultimately approved by the Governor. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement with the bill’s goal of protecting vulnerable families from losing benefits when child support cooperation would be unsafe or impractical.
The main point of contention is the balance between child support enforcement and benefit access. Supporters appear to favor broader protections for survivors of domestic violence, people facing homelessness or crisis, and caregivers who cannot safely or reasonably cooperate with enforcement. Potential critics likely focused on the expanded grounds for exceptions, the reduced documentation burden, and limits on agency discretion, which could make child support enforcement harder to administer or verify.
The bill amends the Human Services Article provisions governing the Family Investment Program, temporary cash assistance sanctions, and child support cooperation requirements. It creates new statutory protections against denial, reduction, or termination of benefits when an applicant or recipient demonstrates good cause or adequate reason for noncooperation, and it requires the Department of Human Services and the Child Support Enforcement Agency Administration to apply specific criteria and notice procedures. It also affects how local departments process applications, document claims, and impose sanctions, while preserving related eligibility for medical assistance and food stamps.
The bill appears to have been generally well received, with substantial majorities in both the House and Senate voting in favor and the Governor approving it. The vote totals indicate that the legislation was viewed as a protective measure for families receiving temporary cash assistance, especially those facing safety concerns, homelessness, or other serious barriers to child support cooperation.
The central disagreement is between protecting applicants/recipients from unsafe or unreasonable child support cooperation requirements and preserving the effectiveness of child support enforcement. Supporters likely emphasized domestic violence survivors, children conceived by rape or incest, families in crisis, and people with disabilities or unstable housing. Opponents likely worried that the bill broadens exceptions too far, reduces documentation and verification requirements, and limits the ability of local departments and child support agencies to enforce cooperation rules consistently.