Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Custody Evaluator Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Hears Bill to Require Standardized Training for Child‑custody Evaluators
Summary
Delegate Erin Kaufman asked the House Judiciary Committee to report favorably on HB 152, which would require custody evaluators to complete 20 hours of initial training and 15 hours every three years; testimony highlighted child safety, federal funding incentives, and remaining disputes about placing requirements in statute versus judiciary rule.
Delegate Erin Kaufman asked the House Judiciary Committee on Jan. 23 for a favorable report on House Bill 152, a measure that would require child custody evaluators to complete 20 hours of initial training and 15 hours of refresher training every three years.
The bill, Kaufman told the committee, is intended to align evaluator training with the training judges receive and to make sure evaluators have experience identifying domestic and child abuse, neglect and parental coercion. “This legislation requires custody evaluators to complete 20 hours of initial training and 15 hours every 3 years after that,” Kaufman said.
Supporters said standardized training would better protect children and could unlock federal grant dollars. A representative of the Treehouse Child Advocacy Center, which provides trauma training to police and court‑appointed evaluators, told the committee the measure “helps specify the range of trauma‑inducing situations evaluators are gonna be confronted with every day.” Paul Griffin, legal director of Child Justice, said a federal program (referred to in testimony as “Cadence Law”) conditions some grant funding on statutory requirements and estimated Maryland’s potential share at about $300,000, arguing the federal government will treat statutory language differently from a judiciary rule.
Several witnesses urged narrowly tailored additions to the training requirements. Disability Rights Maryland requested inclusion of training on implicit bias and accommodations for parents with disabilities. Representatives of parental‑alienation advocacy groups and Mothers Against Child Abuse asked the committee to add instruction on parent‑child contact problems and psychological maltreatment; proponents said those topics are tied to the forensic assessments evaluators make.
The Maryland State Bar Association Family Law Section, represented by Michelle Smith, opposed passing the statutory bill on constitutional and practical grounds because the judiciary already adopted a rule that, she said, makes the training mandatory; the testimony noted the rule was adopted on Jan. 10. Smith urged that the court’s rulemaking process is the appropriate venue to set and update training standards.
Questions from members focused on the remaining differences between the judiciary’s rule and the statutory language, and on two long‑serving custody evaluators in Anne Arundel County who might not meet newly codified qualifications without an amendment. Kaufman said she was amenable to a narrowly framed amendment to address those two county employees if it would secure passage.
No formal vote was recorded during the hearing; the committee ended the panel and moved to other items on the agenda later in the session.
Ending — The committee took testimony and questions but did not vote. Sponsors and advocates said they will continue to negotiate the bill’s final language with the judiciary and stakeholders; proponents repeatedly emphasized child safety and the potential for federal training funds if statutory language is adopted.
