Adult Protective Services – Modifications
HB282 makes several changes to Maryland’s Adult Protective Services laws governing reports and investigations of abuse, neglect, self-neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable adults. The bill expands and clarifies key definitions, including adding definitions for psychological harm, sexual abuse, relationship of trust, indicated, not indicated, undetermined, and risk of harm. It also narrows certain abuse and neglect definitions to conduct by an individual in a relationship of trust with the vulnerable adult, and it specifies that exploitation involves the nonconsensual misuse of a vulnerable adult’s funds or property by such an individual.
The bill also updates reporting procedures. Health practitioners, police officers, and human service workers who suspect abuse must still report to the local department, but they may now do so through an online reporting portal or the statewide reporting hotline in addition to existing methods. For investigations, local departments must determine not only whether abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or exploitation occurred, but also whether the individual is at risk of harm. The bill requires the local department to complete an investigation and issue an indicated, not indicated, or undetermined finding, and it revises the timeline and findings framework accordingly. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB282 amends provisions in the Family Law Article, specifically §§ 14-101, 14-302, and 14-303, affecting Maryland’s adult protective services reporting and investigation system. It changes the statutory definitions that guide when a vulnerable adult case is reportable and how allegations are classified, and it adds new reporting channels and new investigative findings. The bill affects local departments of social services, mandated reporters, law enforcement, and agencies involved in adult protective services, while also shaping how vulnerable adults and alleged perpetrators are identified and assessed under state law.
The bill appears to have broad support. It was reported favorably from committee and passed both chambers unanimously, with 127-0 in the House and 45-0 in the Senate. The lack of recorded opposition in the voting history suggests general agreement with the goal of strengthening and clarifying adult protective services procedures.
No major contention is reflected in the available materials. The main policy choices embedded in the bill are the narrowing of certain definitions to relationships of trust, the addition of psychological harm and sexual abuse as explicit categories, and the requirement that investigations assess whether a vulnerable adult is at risk of harm. These changes may matter most to adult protective services agencies, mandated reporters, caregivers, and individuals accused of abuse or exploitation, but the available record does not show organized opposition or debate.