[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":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,"_75":74},"mediaId",6612771,"mediaKeyId","2887336-d8d120d0566484739f3f6e8a9eda4018","parentId",2887336,"title","Votes at a glance: Judicial Proceedings Committee actions, April 5, 2025","audioSeconds",720,"startMs",1906000,"endMs",2626000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887336-d8d120d0566484739f3f6e8a9eda4018&start=1906&end=2626","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887336-d8d120d0566484739f3f6e8a9eda4018/thumbnail_1906000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6612771/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-actions-April-5-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612771-5dcb8e96650139f1e243c820161f5f38/orig.mp4?Expires=1775562296&Signature=GTezXS58bab-PP-3ONy11LFKeQ4u-zfkodFwznILsumAgjTGUXmtBC-T4qjbxCS1BQOElz57m75JZ3TXBoejNrpH-Ia7XIoogMhsDATQnhHgZf8P~lBdQA43YesKrutkJQs8vsu8eRgvDsEjcu4a-f72PLZqn3Bt9Fgkyfs4doyk~dwit4E6hu9veMueGX4T~q1r8pN4-Lyrc3Ll4WApRUKsAhf5mqt8EmOI8VJkiqtD3P9IImNcPu6go39-f1ZLNtWUMFGefMfnthEpfRNGerkI5xPt6DTyNdszmDdlk-66~XyTtK~bPSUI-5cPf2AXwwRrSclSRzmjKaJ9tkW~Pg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Maryland General Assembly - Judicial Proceedings","date","2025-04-05T16:55:32.827Z","article","ANNAPOLIS, April 5 — The Judicial Proceedings Committee acted on multiple bills during its April 5 session. Below are one‑line summaries of bills recorded in the committee transcript and the outcomes captured on the record.

- House Bill 681 — Child‑support license suspension: Committee reported favorably; transcript records the bill passed unanimously.

- House Bill 1371 — Motor vehicle electronic credentials: Committee reported favorably; transcript records the bill passed unanimously. Committee discussion noted uncertainty whether non‑Real ID credentials are eligible for the program; counsel said the bill does not specify Real ID status and that program operators may voluntarily choose Real ID‑only issuance.

- House Bill 1367 — Civil penalty for falsifying lead‑dust test reports: Committee reported favorably; transcript records a 10–1 vote.

- House Bill 1440 — Court lactation rooms and jury‑excusal provisions: Committee reported favorably; committee discussion clarified the requirement applies to courthouses constructed or undergoing major renovation on or after Oct. 1, 2025, and that a lactation room need not be solely dedicated so long as the listed equipment (chair/table, lockable door, sink, refrigerator) is provided.

- House Bill 1076 — Landlord notice before entry: Committee reported favorably; transcript includes a recorded affirmative outcome (tally referenced late in the hearing as 9–2 in the captured record). The bill authorizes injunctive relief or damages for tenants for violations of entry notice requirements.

- Multiple Senate concur/not concur actions: The committee recorded concurrence or non‑concurrence referrals for several Senate bills including SB 381 (automated enforcement image retention; concurrence recorded), SB 608 (certification timelines for certain noncitizen crime victims; committee voted not to concur), SB 811 (task force on returning citizens; concurrence recorded), and SB 896 (landlord pet‑policy disclosure; concurrence recorded). In several cases the committee asked for conferees where House and Senate language differed.

Notes on recordkeeping: For some concurrence items the transcript records committee assent with no numerical roll call provided in the captured segments; where the transcript lists a numeric tally that number is indicated above. This summary reports outcomes only as recorded in the committee transcript and does not change bill text or create new legal conclusions.

For full details and the committee's full record, see the individual bills' files and committee minutes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","JPR Committee Session, 4/5/2025 #1","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of bills acted on by the Judicial Proceedings Committee with outcomes recorded in the hearing transcript.","taxTitle","Judicial Proceedings Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland","taxId",15095,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612776,"Committee sends split parole‑risk language to conference after debate over 'may' versus 'shall' in Senate Bill 181",525,1021000,1546000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887336-d8d120d0566484739f3f6e8a9eda4018&start=1021&end=1546","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887336-d8d120d0566484739f3f6e8a9eda4018/thumbnail_1021000.jpg","/articles/6612776/Maryland/Committee-sends-split-parolerisk-language-to-conference-after-debate-over-may-versus-shall-in-Senate-Bill-181","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612776-17a156b29477f72e27475843626915a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1775562296&Signature=AQq6STWHoLWTB8eg6GGwRMJ3UVwoa7w50XWmY3Hx2UyQXQPaC0TjRxGcnM3756jd2Q59Mv1zoN4pf1uUG84lo2EZYiCDN2kYapTAsmxlwk-2g~0WyqYpM76cSCYEzaqRS-6xfg0QpqJwQ2HqTwNCymWo8wWLnjA56iCfPZKoHl2zJO9CYwIDozoAFfBS0XnZiI2AkJU4voalNSI9Ldbo8ntfYRyYA1AgS0ykMjgeKZ-Haor8CbQLdNBvbMxec1f~1Wf8qpGwBfZ3bvVjWoMPYnho5Hm4Kqmq92dN30OlrTJtt23Rmsl~UAmiBYOoTJzel4cHmqeWYqlSbF1Qb8U41Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","ANNAPOLIS, April 5 — The Judicial Proceedings Committee voted to send Senate Bill 181 to conference after members debated competing language about risk assessments for medical and geriatric parole.

Senate Bill 181, as passed by the Senate, as described in committee, alters provisions related to medical and geriatric parole and includes language concerning authorization for the Parole Commission to conduct risk assessments for persons eligible for parole. The House amendments changed that language in a way that, according to committee counsel, made the bill nearly identical to a separate House bill but with a small difference: whether the Parole Commission may be authorized to conduct risk assessments for individuals generally eligible for parole or only for those eligible for geriatric parole.

Committee counsel told members the Senate sponsor preferred the House version be modified to reinstate the Senate posture. Lawmakers debated whether the statute should require (“shall”) or allow (“may”) the Parole Commission to conduct assessments and whether the authorization should be broad (applying to parole‑eligible individuals generally) or limited to those eligible for geriatric parole.

A motion was made not to concur with the House amendments so the Senate position — narrower authorization tied to geriatric parole and limited discretion for the Parole Commission — could be restored in conference. The motion was seconded and the committee recorded its assent; members also discussed not overburdening the Parole Commission given workload concerns. Several senators sought clarity about whether the change would make risk assessments mandatory or discretionary; committee counsel confirmed that the intended conference posture is to preserve a limited, discretionary authorization for geriatric parole risk assessments.

Outcome: The committee voted not to concur and to appoint conferees to resolve the difference between the House and Senate language; names of conferees were discussed but not finalized in the public record captured here.

Next steps: The matter moves to a conference committee where sponsors from both chambers will negotiate the final text before floor votes.","Lawmakers disagreed over whether the Parole Commission should be authorized or required to perform risk assessments; the committee moved not to concur and to send the matter to a conference committee to reconcile Senate and House language.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612781,"Judicial Proceedings Committee backs changes to child‑abuse damage limits and attorney‑fee rules in House Bill 1378",829,177000,1006000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2887336-d8d120d0566484739f3f6e8a9eda4018&start=177&end=1006","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2887336-d8d120d0566484739f3f6e8a9eda4018/thumbnail_177000.jpg","/articles/6612781/Maryland/Judicial-Proceedings-Committee-backs-changes-to-childabuse-damage-limits-and-attorneyfee-rules-in-House-Bill-1378","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612781-aec54d8574c327aa4e5d98a60ea2cbdb/orig.mp4?Expires=1775562296&Signature=nDEXlc~vSjVyb7vYvESB0w~4CM9voa8zo5whE6Dy0cd8fuvT20lm0WyVD3ua9ixXsb03zUpbbCkJkVVkkpIzC4WIKgOMLtVxPj7zZPJkEYD30Ue~HaEqJD9hHAB0b9PofX5Od00N2vjiyhdLLxYvlvFR4bgn3RHd3PMR7DohuriKtu9pGBhNxMXj9NJoSxj2cyey5w9W5mdF8q9XP5B0CCqaj6afc1iBzp3YdoZA8mrryjpYH08tG~R5NhqtIj2mzsMtOZpF-4s~ZBdon3B2IWMVKK0SU6rxRm8QiZ0VG2xwVPix~eAGl00h0UmaovLe-6A8zMkES4G91dCr1Q9XYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","ANNAPOLIS, April 5 — The Judicial Proceedings Committee voted to report House Bill 1378 favorably after adopting a clarifying amendment that narrows how courts treat repeated incidents in child‑abuse cases and applies new caps and attorney‑fee limits.

The bill, as explained by committee counsel, alters provisions relating to awards of non‑economic damages in actions for child sexual abuse, revises caps in the local and State Tort Claims Acts and in some provisions applicable to local boards of education, and limits awarded attorneys’ fees as specified in the bill.

Committee counsel told members the bill removes language that referred to an “incident or occurrence” and replaces it with “claim or claims.” Counsel said the intent is to treat repeated acts against a single claimant at a facility as a single claim for purposes of the statutory caps: “the intent there is to clarify the intent of the General Assembly … that that’s 1 claim. And that’s 1 for the claimant,” counsel said during the hearing.

Senator West asked that counsel place on the record an explanation of the change in light of case law, citing an appellate decision the committee discussed. West said legislative history can affect judicial interpretation and sought clarity that the substitution of “claim or claims” would alter how cases are pleaded and decided in court. Counsel and other members referenced the appellate case Maryland v. Michael Young while explaining that the replacement language focuses on the pleaded claim rather than isolated factual incidents underlying that claim.

A technical amendment was adopted to correct a printing error and to narrow the applicability of a $400,000 cap. Committee counsel explained the amendment makes that cap apply only to previously stale claims revived and filed on or after June 1, 2025, rather than to all claims filed on or after that date.

Senator West proposed a substantive amendment that would impose a 20% surcharge on recovered attorneys’ fees in child‑victim cases, directing the surcharge to a newly created Child Victims Services and Prevention Fund. West described the proposal as a means to shift part of potential fee revenue into services for victims; he read the amendment’s opening provision describing a 20% surcharge on fees collected to be submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts.

After discussion about the fiscal and access‑to‑justice implications and whether the change could be made prospectively, counsel noted the Attorney General’s March 17 opinion addressing attorney‑fee modification and said a prospective surcharge could be enacted by future legislation. Senator West withdrew the amendment, saying he would pursue the idea in the next legislative session.

Committee member Miss Spence moved adoption of the clarifying technical amendment; the committee then voted on the bill as amended. The committee reported House Bill 1378 favorably with the amendment by a 10–1 vote.

What the bill does not do: the committee record shows no final change to existing statutes beyond the text of HB 1378 and the technical conforming amendment; the withdrawn surcharge proposal was not adopted.

Votes at the committee: House Bill 1378 (as amended) — favorable report, 10 yes, 1 no.

Looking ahead: With the bill reported favorably, it moves to the full House for floor consideration and any further amendments. The committee discussion noted possible future legislation to address attorney‑fee surcharges prospectively if lawmakers decide to pursue that approach.","The committee approved amendments to House Bill 1378 that change how courts count incidents in child‑abuse claims, adjust caps under the state and local tort claims acts, and impose limits on attorneys’ fees; the bill passed 10–1 after a technical amendment and a withdrawn proposal to divert 20% of fees to a victims fund.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Judicial Proceedings Committee actions, April 5, 2025

Committee sends split parole‑risk language to conference after debate over 'may' versus 'shall' in Senate Bill 181

Judicial Proceedings Committee backs changes to child‑abuse damage limits and attorney‑fee rules in House Bill 1378