Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Troubled Teen Transport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would ban blindfolds, secret midnight pickups in Maryland youth-transport industry
Summary
House Bill 497 would prohibit youth-transport companies from using blindfolds, hoods, excessive physical restraint or night-time extractions when moving minors to residential programs; survivors and advocates urged passage after describing traumatic midnight removals, while opponents asked for clarity on scope and criminal remedies.
Delegate Vaughn Stewart told the House Judiciary Committee he introduced House Bill 497 to restrict the tactics used by private youth-transport companies that move minors to residential treatment programs. The measure would bar hooding, blindfolding, excessive restraint, zip-ties and nighttime extractions during transports that originate in Maryland.
Survivors described forcible wake-ups, zip-ties, hooding and placement on flights or long van rides to out-of-state facilities. Emily Block told the committee she was taken from her bed at 16, “They put those zip ties around my wrists and brought me out of my home… I didn't see my parents again for 18 months.” Sarah Stusick described being “restrained while rummaging through my drawers” and later blindfolded during transport to Montana.
Advocates and legal representatives said the transport industry operates with little oversight, often arranging national placements, and that websites and placement referrals can appear locally targeted though the companies are based elsewhere. Caroline Cole of 11:11 Media Impact and attorney Kimberly Daugherty urged the committee to adopt civil remedies and penalties; Daugherty said civil liability and financial penalties are necessary to hold companies accountable.
Witnesses and supporters identified several policy levers beyond criminal prosecution: civil penalties, prohibitions on nighttime extraction and explicit bans on mechanical restraints, plus measures to bar public funding for such transports. Leslie Margolis of Disability Rights Maryland urged strengthening restraint standards and aligning them with Maryland education code definitions that allow physical restraint only when a child poses a substantial likelihood of imminent serious physical harm.
Committee members probed whether criminal statutes could apply and whether state funds or federal programs already pay for transports; advocates said federal funding streams have, in other cases, paid tens of thousands for placements and that a federal accounting is in progress. The sponsor said the bill is modeled on Oregon law and would be the second state measure targeting transport companies specifically.
Supporters said the bill attacks the business model—midnight abductions with blindfolds and restraints—rather than banning voluntary daytime, consensual transportation to treatment. Opponents raised questions about scope and about other settings (hospitals, ambulances, legitimate emergency restraints) that the bill does not affect.
The committee did not take a final vote; witnesses and the sponsor asked for a favorable report and indicated willingness to consider clarifying amendments, including explicit protections against chemical restraint.
