Senator Mary Beth Carozza told the Judicial Proceedings Committee SB25 would put into statute minimum qualifications and training for professionals appointed by family courts to perform child custody evaluations in cases involving allegations of child abuse or domestic violence.

“This is a child protection bill,” Carozza said, noting a study that found 21 Maryland children were killed between 2008 and 2023 where family law matters were a factor. She recounted three years of interim work with a bipartisan group and said the judiciary had revised Rule 9‑205.3; SB25 would mirror the changed rule and place baseline evaluator qualifications into statute so federal funding and uniform state recognition are not jeopardized.

Nut gra f: Sponsors and advocates argued that courts rely heavily on custody evaluators — judges follow recommendations in the large majority of cases — so minimum statutory standards and training on child abuse, trauma, family violence and disability would protect children and ensure more consistent evaluations. The Office of the Public Defender, advocates for disability rights and victims’ advocates asked the committee to adopt additional, explicit training on disability bias and evidence‑based recommendations.

Witnesses included Leslie Sid Margolis of Disability Rights Maryland, who asked for an amendment requiring evaluator training about disability, neutrality and supports available to parents and children with disabilities. Hara McLeod (via virtual testimony) described a court case in which a child later was killed; McLeod told senators that better‑trained evaluators could have changed the outcome.

Judge and judiciary staff met with the sponsor during the interim and updated Rule 9‑205.3 on Jan. 10; the sponsor said SB25 tracks the updated judiciary rule but urged legislators to adopt the rule also as statute to give it more permanence and to protect eligibility for federal funding. Several members asked for technical clarifications and for the judiciary and disability advocates to refine language on how evaluators show their qualifications and be grandfathered if already court‑approved.

Ending: The bill drew extended personal testimony and policy debate but no committee vote. The sponsor said she would accept the judiciary‑drafted language and work with Disability Rights Maryland to add disability‑focused training language before moving the bill to a committee vote.