[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6617764,"mediaKeyId","2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1","parentId",2839440,"title","Committee advances amended Child Victims Act with lower caps and attorney-fee limits; members voice concerns","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",4595000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1&start=4595&end=4595","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1/thumbnail_4595000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6617764/Maryland/Committee-advances-amended-Child-Victims-Act-with-lower-caps-and-attorney-fee-limits-members-voice-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617764-1d3b3d5af6b81b22bbcc22fc3ac4ecce/orig.mp4?Expires=1776587038&Signature=NlErYgLdRxTUfEuKiZNdO~cg6-xiwbnAChRc5kS1SVpMdUf6cp~652BqYkJiLs1Nd7D1oszaksXwarkM8W3wxhJNf4UxpWUUNypDFJO2Oe1NYaifdfBXzy7JSahV1Ny6NJcbJlp-R3JWFGRY3uAv21bZK7rKANzn~5zdf6hN3R3HlooNP3i2lS17k1EnF55Czpa43h1AqEk5GO2VNeNMVmzZB~ktc6orwfe3dMnjopW-et0TcZeJngEFsRexpJh4y4AuN0ap9vum2ejvdvF6ug3~l4Un1a-Z3XJSof8MAEdV~SC0pmisRKyfgLDaGpb7h61cr9bz~8Lb25w725JlSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judiciary","date","2025-04-01T19:51:03.463Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee spent extended time on an amendment to House Bill 13-78 (Child Victims Act) on March 26, 2025. The interlineated amendment would apply prospectively, with an effective date of June 1, 2025, and for claims brought after October 1 of that year it would lower damage caps and limit attorneys' fees.

Why it matters: the Child Victims Act addresses civil claims by people who were sexually abused or otherwise victimized as children, including claims previously time-barred. Changes to caps and fee structures affect compensation available to claimants and the financial exposure of public and private defendants, and the debate raised questions about balancing victims' restitution and state/local fiscal exposure.

Key provisions described in the committee: the amendment would lower the private-defendant cap from $1,500,000 to $700,000 and lower the public-defendant cap from $890,000 to $400,000 (the latter aligned with local tort-claim caps mentioned in the hearing). The amendment also sets attorney-fee caps at 20% for settlements and 25% for judgments. Additionally, the amendment requests that the Maryland Supreme Court promulgate rules for implementing the Act’s provisions and requires an annual judiciary report summarizing awards and the underlying claims. The amendment’s effective date was stated as 06/01/2025 for the statute's prospective provisions.

Committee debate and perspectives: Delegates voiced differing views. Delegate Grammer and others questioned why victims whose claims involved public institutions should face a lower cap than victims of private abuse; they expressed concerns that monetary caps may be insufficient to make victims whole. Chair (unnamed) and other supporters said the amendment is intended to balance making claims actionable and understanding the fiscal universe for the state and local governments while keeping the door open for previously time-barred claims. Several delegates emphasized that many victims sought acknowledgment, therapy and vindication, not only financial awards.

Votes and next steps: The committee did not finalize floor action on all possible changes during the hearing, but the chair warned members that votes would be taken the next morning at 9:00 and after the first session on Wednesday. Members were invited to file additional amendments for consideration in the near term.

What remains unspecified in the transcript: The amendment as discussed sets new caps but the transcript does not include actuarial or fiscal estimates of total exposure under the lowered caps or the number of potential claimants. Members urged further analysis and said amendment language may be adjusted before final floor votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JUD Committee Session, 4/1/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee considered an interlineated amendment to House Bill 13-78 (Child Victims Act). The amendment sets new caps for private and public defendants for future claims, adds an effective date and caps attorneys' fees, prompting extended discussion about victims' needs and fiscal impacts.","taxTitle","Judiciary Committee, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15063,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_46":81,"_48":82,"_50":83,"_52":84,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":85,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":86,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6617769,"Committee rejects amendment to add certain \"failure to report\" offense to expungement list",1159,965000,2124000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1&start=965&end=2124","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1/thumbnail_965000.jpg","/articles/6617769/Maryland/Committee-rejects-amendment-to-add-certain-failure-to-report-offense-to-expungement-list","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617769-a0a363813ee31400576a163354504fe1/orig.mp4?Expires=1776587038&Signature=l5ZuAI8pv0BZ4Xvse5bhLXJdX1ZVdA11pygG53JC~p3RGXkxB8mHZytsj3w3LCEdGqfbcH28RTQhaLXApezv8DTdJWm0eTjP1z7KzlN-SoOlHMFBeV2eafKd1lpvFsCFu2IuXOCnEdko6MYb8U1~yziQsW~jEUxKgi9U7hTjq~OXM8rfOIiDitaNTF9W2veIEGGyJ8qVsJTpLQZQf4TWkhHUI-21bKWjGajAOiNzml2vdpga9X0x0fym0skN8U-mlA4ouivbzn3zxB5QSY93KpNs7Y8slf2ujdCrw5~-zwfehLn3cVfJJn7CC5VlOYkVHIBKX2wdJh2AJrygRbFdcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee debated and rejected an amendment that would have added a specific offense—described in the hearing as the failure to obey a court order to report to a place of confinement (referenced as part of \"escape in the second degree\")—to the statute allowing expungement of certain charges. The proposer described a constituent whose life had been adversely affected by that single charge and sought to allow expungement after 15 years following completion of sentence.

Why it matters: the amendment would have broadened the set of charges eligible for expungement after a long wait period (15 years), affecting people who have decades-old convictions tied to administrative \"failure to report\" situations. The committee discussion focused on whether the charge at issue was distinct from failure-to-appear or more typical escape-related conduct, and whether adding the offense would interfere with public-safety considerations such as pretrial release or bail decisions.

Key exchanges and legal distinctions: Delegate Grammer and others questioned whether the underlying conduct in the constituent's case was actually failure to appear versus failure to report to confinement; lawmakers and the vice chair walked through statutory distinctions and examples, noting that \"failure to report\" is referenced in the escape-in-the-second-degree statute and may apply to people who did not report for weekend incarceration or other ordered reporting. Delegate Moon and others cautioned that the offense is not a lightweight administrative charge and that retaining it on records can be relevant to future custody or release decisions. The vice chair and other members expressed concern about the timing of adding substantive amendments late in the process.

Vote and outcome: The committee held a recorded count on the amendment; votes in the transcript totaled three in favor and thirteen opposed (count shown in transcript). The amendment was not adopted. The underlying bill continued and later was voted favorably as reported.

What the transcript leaves unspecified: The transcript provides the statutory reference as \"9405 A2\" language read during the hearing but does not provide a print-ready amended statute in the record offered here. The committee discussion repeatedly emphasized the need to distinguish failure-to-appear bench-warrant charges from failure to report to a place of confinement.","An amendment to add the offense described as a \"failure to report\" (appearing as part of escape in the second degree language) to the statutory list of expungible charges was debated and not adopted by the House Judiciary Committee.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_46":93,"_48":94,"_50":95,"_52":96,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":97,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":98,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6617773,"Committee advances amended bill adding geriatric parole criteria and risk-assessment requirement",194,246000,440000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1&start=246&end=440","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1/thumbnail_246000.jpg","/articles/6617773/Maryland/Committee-advances-amended-bill-adding-geriatric-parole-criteria-and-risk-assessment-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617773-e8acc19330a1ba86704881b10c9a1ce4/orig.mp4?Expires=1776587038&Signature=NmsZ~ehBkOavkoNJwkYbJbxAeCRb5b~FCltyG24xkIowe8KenyC9M9Ju713kU~LWdHy4Ha8rDv0db-HzaJ3tSIh6W73T-knH5xJLgzMtcTgCNmSP1b6YDgOor2p8A2zG8u0qWCbsalHUs876AcKsvQ9SPvQwqaUBk2Nhurw03PT8~~I32HkGS1PoiHu7gTPxXfX0ifI2bpQj-2kBysCVi9c4IT4W0ZK20FWXQfC1U~mb3bDWngNMfkjeDGWqC3~tYME2T3DgN-VHhj8XMMxOSCHjX5p-FrQfBWxvHPho-CQ-4dpGyMOR4RzUpoLyFQ7kk53UY4ufGEmvLivTUg8JQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted favorably, as amended, on Senate Bill 181 on March 26, 2025. The vice chair explained the amendment adds geriatric parole to the statute alongside medical parole and sets eligibility criteria, and the committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably.

Why it matters: the amendment changes parole eligibility and adds procedural requirements for review, including a risk-assessment requirement for certain long-term sentences and an ongoing reporting obligation of names by the Department (DPSCS) to the parole board, which affects how parole petitions from older incarcerated people will be processed.

What the amendment does: The vice chair described the key elements: the amendment expands parole categories to include both medical and geriatric parole; it sets geriatric eligibility at age 65 with at least 20 years served and a three-year period free of Category 1A infractions. For people who have been incarcerated on a sentence of 40 years or more, the amendment requires a risk assessment prior to parole consideration. The amendment also requires ongoing provision of qualifying names by the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) to the parole authority, and the vice chair said implementation funding would be drawn from the JRA (as stated in the transcript).

Committee discussion: Delegate Taylor asked whether the risk-assessment requirement was newly extended beyond life sentences; the vice chair clarified that previously the parole commission’s policy required risk assessments for life sentences and that the amendment extends required risk assessments to those serving terms of 40 years or more. No further changes to the amendment were recorded, and the chamber voted to adopt the amendment and then to report the bill favorably as amended.

Outcome: The committee adopted the amendment and moved SB181 favorably as amended.

What remains unclear from the transcript: The transcript records that funding to carry out the obligations would come from the JRA, but does not provide a dollar amount or implementation timeline beyond the statutory requirements placed on the parole process.

Next steps: The bill will proceed to the House floor in its amended form for further consideration.","The committee approved an amended version of Senate Bill 181 to expand parole categories to include geriatric parole, set eligibility criteria and require risk assessments in certain long-term cases; funding for implementation was referenced as coming from the JRA.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":42,"_45":103,"_46":104,"_48":105,"_50":106,"_52":107,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":108,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":109,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6617778,"House Judiciary Committee advances multiple bills in series of favorable votes",4,4904,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1&start=0&end=4","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2839440-e39effe67ce6c4d9636732d741c39bc1/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6617778/Maryland/House-Judiciary-Committee-advances-multiple-bills-in-series-of-favorable-votes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6617778-b084a8f4a45f806283858a8a5c34cdfe/orig.mp4?Expires=1776587038&Signature=AW52ddrR8stfWVAzTpvP~x9NZRNsehzl7JW2kHbl6Oyw4AnC5Gf4djac5caxIzY3GCS-JGJJVCCxGQf~RZrsLeds3MKddyIFxEFQd9fCw8ZJwtsXuYjszywAWXsS8WhHcnhviwp02rMJtaHuBI9RyOMfOUa3jgoRnZ~ZSwpepYVr6CkZlIA6efpfjxvNmmaC3HQKwfNhDipZpbIR1c8cegrii97V1sYsxGlfD3a3k9VlOvpqU3edIsmYnXbQ5BqnRcmtb75~2Bk2wQM9MVt3T3yYitHehd~epto~I~p6uV038hUq1Q8HY2phzGa81YIcBUqSWYwM4IwPOrj6HpPx4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee met on March 26, 2025, and moved a number of bills favorably to the floor, including Senate cross-files on topics ranging from parole changes to licensing and criminal statutes. Chair (unnamed) called the meeting to order and the committee took a sequence of favorable motions on many bills, several with no substantive debate.

The committee approved favorable motions for Senate Bill 32, Senate Bill 125, Senate Bill 187, Senate Bill 348, Senate Bill 356 and others that were presented as cross-files of House measures. Several of those motions were adopted by voice or roll call; where a recorded vote followed, the transcript records the committee chair calling the roll and announcing the motion adopted.

Why it matters: the favorable reports mean these measures will be advanced to the House floor for further consideration. Because many of the items were taken in quick succession and in the posture of cross-files already passed by one chamber, the committee moved most without extended debate.

Details: The transcript records that motions for favorable were made and seconded for each bill listed on the agenda; the chair repeatedly asked whether there were questions, and in most cases none were offered. Not all bills in the queue were discussed at length; a small number drew follow-up questions or amendments on the committee floor and were taken as amended rather than in their original form.

Votes at a glance (selected items recorded on the transcript):
- Senate Bill 32 — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 125 — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 181 — motion for favorable adopted as amended (see separate article on the geriatric parole amendment).
- Senate Bill 187 — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 348 — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 356 — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 443 (felony firearms trafficking, cross-file noted in transcript) — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 566 (listed as 5 66 in transcript; increase in filing fee) — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 581 (\"Buddy's Law\") — motion for favorable adopted.
- Senate Bill 608 (U Visa conforming language) — motion for favorable adopted.

The committee also considered and adopted amendments on several bills; those are the subject of individual committee debate and are covered in separate articles in this package.

Looking ahead: bills reported favorably by the committee are scheduled for floor action as the House calendar permits. Several bills with amendments were noted as returning to the senate/house as conforming changes; the chair asked members to be ready for votes the next morning and on subsequent session days.","The House Judiciary Committee voted favorably on a slate of Senate cross-file bills and several House measures, moving them forward to the floor; most motions were adopted without extended debate.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances amended Child Victims Act with lower caps and attorney-fee limits; members voice concerns

Committee rejects amendment to add certain "failure to report" offense to expungement list

Committee advances amended bill adding geriatric parole criteria and risk-assessment requirement

House Judiciary Committee advances multiple bills in series of favorable votes