In 2024, the Maryland General assembly passed legislation that recognizes the critical importance of parent-child relationships and attachment, as well as the challenges that separation from a child can present to a parent\u2019s substance use recovery process.<\/p>\n
House Bill 833, introduced a new legal presumption in child welfare matters where, based on allegations of abuse or neglect, the juvenile court must determine whether to temporarily remove a child a from a parent who is enrolled in a residential substance use treatment program.<\/p>\n
The Maryland Code\u2019s Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Section 3-815 guides the juvenile courts in the protection of children who are removed from their parents\u2019 physical custody and \u201csheltered\u201d to state child welfare agencies.<\/p>\n
When a matter is emergently before the court in a shelter care hearing, and the judge has yet to receive sufficient evidence to determine the appropriateness of formally committing a child to state custody as a Child in Need of Assistance, the court prioritizes the child\u2019s immediate safety above all other factors.<\/p>\n
Shelter care hearings observe relaxed evidentiary standards compared to civil, criminal, and even subsequent CINA matters, as the court only requires reasonable grounds to temporarily place a child in state custody.<\/p>\n
This low burden, combined with the immediacy of shelter care hearings, can make it difficult for parents to persuade the court to return their children to their care.<\/p>\n
To mitigate the risk of prejudicial and harmful outcomes, the Maryland General Assembly periodically issues legislation reflecting circumstances where removal might not serve a child\u2019s best interests.<\/p>\n
A recent example is H.B. 833, Parents in Substance Use Disorder Treatment \u2013 Children in Need of Assistance and Treatment Facilities, <\/em>which was codified in 2024:<\/p>\n If a child\u2019s parent is receiving treatment in a residential substance use disorder treatment program with beds or services for patients\u2019 children and the child is in the presence of the child\u2019s parent for the duration of the child\u2019s parent\u2019s treatment, there is a presumption that:<\/p>\n (2) This subsection may not be construed to prohibit another parent or a guardian, a custodian, a relative, or another person able to provide supervision and care from providing supervision and care for a child for the duration of the child\u2019s parent\u2019s treatment if the other parent, guardian, custodian, relative, or other person agrees to provide supervision and care.<\/p>\n The statute provides a presumption that a child is returned to their parent in a qualifying treatment program, but it does not mandate that the court do so if presented with evidence that would overcome the presumption.<\/p>\n For example, if a newborn, born drug-exposed, whose only parent, the mother, presents to the court that she has just entered substance abuse treatment, unless the court receives evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption, the court must order the child placed with their mother in treatment.<\/p>\n The court may issue a shelter care order if evidence to rebut the presumption is introduced, such as a restriction required by the treatment program prohibiting mother\u2019s contact with anyone outside the program for a certain time, the newborn\u2019s special medical needs, or the unavailability of services for the newborn in the substance abuse treatment program.<\/p>\n Even if a parent resides in a facility that meets the statutory criteria, the court must still consider all factors relevant to the child\u2019s safety and welfare.<\/p>\n Moreover, the amendment appears to permit broad judicial discretion as it includes no list of factors to consider or weigh, such as the nature, history, and recency of a parent\u2019s substance use or the structure and viability of a treatment program\u2019s safeguards.<\/p>\n As the application of CJP \u00a7 3-815(e) has yet to be developed, parties will best serve their clients and the judicial process by clearly and completely articulating the grounds for invoking or opposing the presumption and by basing such grounds in the specific facts of each case, and not in assumptions or generalities about substance use.<\/p>\n This will allow the courts to issue opinions describing the application of the presumption and will serve the best interests of Maryland\u2019s most vulnerable children, like the newborn cited above, by providing safety where needed and reunification where possible.<\/p>\n Michael Rosemond is a Staff Attorney at Maryland Legal Aid.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In 2024, the Maryland General assembly passed legislation that recognizes the critical importance of parent-child relationships and attachment, as well as the challenges that separation from a child can present to a parent\u2019s substance use recovery process. House Bill 833, introduced a new legal presumption in child welfare matters where, based on allegations of abuse …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3248,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[52569,491,2536],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","category-columns","category-featured","subscriber_only"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n\n