Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Support Problem Solving topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judicial Council approves child-support problem-solving court blueprint
Summary
The Maryland Judicial Council unanimously approved a blueprint allowing counties to pilot child-support problem-solving courts focused on rehabilitation. The plan cites evidence from other states and Caroline County’s RISE program, which reported $143,139 in 2023 collections from 63 participants.
The Maryland Judicial Council on March 26 unanimously approved "Child Support: A Blueprint for Maryland’s Judiciary," a set of guidelines that would allow counties to establish child-support problem-solving courts focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Hon. Cathy H. Serrette introduced the proposal and said the blueprint outlines four phases—"orientation, stabilization, transformation, and maintenance."
Magistrate Mark Tyler presented outcome data from Caroline County’s RISE Program, reporting that in 2023 the program served 63 participants who generated $143,139 in child-support payments; 31 participants secured full-time employment and 14 obtained part-time work. Tyler said the Caroline County program utilizes Title IV-D funds and that the blueprint is designed so jurisdictions can tailor operations to local resources.
Justice E. Greg Wells moved to approve the blueprint; Judge James A. Kenney III seconded the motion and the Council adopted the recommendation. Council members discussed funding and implementation logistics, with some expressing concern about resource availability for pilot sites while supporting the proposal’s goals.
The measure authorizes courts that choose to adopt the model to emphasize rehabilitation and workforce supports, and it encourages use of alternative dispute resolution where appropriate. The Council did not designate a specific pilot county; Justice Fader and other members said a pilot could begin once a county elects to participate.
The Council’s approval sends the blueprint to the Administrative Office of the Courts and to local courts interested in piloting the model. No vote tallies beyond "unanimous approval" were recorded.
