Maryland bill would require DSS to notify parents of rights when investigators come to their homes

Delegate Charlotte Crutchfield introduced House Bill 223 on Feb. 13 before the House Judiciary Committee, proposing that Department of Social Services investigators provide parents and guardians a written “Know Before You Knock” notice at the start of an investigation.

The bill’s sponsors and a broad coalition of legal and social-service advocates said the measure merely informs parents of rights they already have under federal and state law and the Constitution. Nina Villamar, chief of the Parental Defense Division at the Office of the Public Defender, said HB 223 “does the same thing in Senate cases that Miranda rights have done in criminal cases” and “ensures that parents are informed of the rights that Maryland law already grants them.”

Supporters told the committee the change is narrow: the notice would explain allegations, the right to consult an attorney before signing documents, and that a government agent cannot enter a home without consent or a court order except in emergencies. Natasha Calfany, managing attorney of the Office of the Public Defender’s pre-petition program, urged a favorable report and emphasized constitutional protections including the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Public defenders and legal-aid advocates described repeated examples of parents who said they were asked to sign safety plans or release custody without understanding their rights. Bay Golfin of Maryland Legal Aid recounted clients whose children were removed and later returned only after investigations were closed, and said many investigations end without a finding of maltreatment but leave lasting harm.

Survivors and parent advocates gave emotional testimony about feeling coerced when workers arrived. Christina Hawkins, who identified herself as a statewide peer support manager at the Office of the Public Defender but spoke on her own behalf, described signing a safety plan and later being separated from her child for years.

Opponents, including representatives of child-welfare organizations and a senior assistant state’s attorney, said the bill as written risks delaying worker access to children and could increase safety risks. Jennifer Stein, executive director of Court Appointed Special Advocates for Children of Baltimore County, said the measure could “escalate” interactions and prompt more court or police involvement, and urged more work on the draft. Michael Calabrese of the Maryland State’s Attorneys Association said formalizing a notice could make DSS seem adversarial and “necessarily diminish the rights of children in favor of parents.”

Supporters replied that the bill was amended to remove an earlier exclusionary-rule provision that had raised concern, and that it would not affect emergency authority to enter a home to protect a child. Haley, deputy chief of the Parental Defense Division at the Office of the Public Defender, told the committee that “if there’s an emergency and the DHS worker or the police need to get in to see the children, the only option is not removal” and cited existing Family Law provisions allowing entry in exigent circumstances.

The panel of supporters included social workers, attorneys, and civil-rights advocates who said notifying parents of existing rights would improve trust and cooperation and reduce the trauma of investigations; opponents raised concerns about training and possible unintended consequences. Committee questions focused on whether the bill would make investigations adversarial and on data about child fatalities and removals.

The committee did not take a final vote at the hearing. Supporters asked the Judiciary Committee for a favorable report and said they were willing to continue negotiating specific language and clarifications with DSS and other stakeholders.