By Michael Phillips | Father & Co.

Maryland lawmakers are again advancing legislation framed as strengthening child protection, responding to real and serious concerns about abuse and neglect. The push reflects a familiar legislative instinct: expand reporting, broaden intervention authority, and give state systems more tools to act earlier.

On the surface, that sounds responsible. But for parents who have lived inside family court or child welfare systems, the details matter far more than the slogans. And once again, the details reveal a troubling pattern: more power for the system, fewer protections for families, and persistent blind spots that directly affect children.

A System That Grows—but Doesn’t Get Smarter

The core problem with many “child protection” bills is not their intent, but their design. They expand authority without tightening standards. They add pathways for intervention without strengthening due process. And they rely heavily on professionals whose qualifications are often defined loosely—despite the life-altering consequences of their recommendations.

That pattern is visible not only in broad child welfare legislation, but in a bill lawmakers frequently cite as reform-oriented: SB222 / HB0137, addressing qualifications for child custody evaluators.

The Same Bill, the Same Omission—Five Times Running

SB222, cross-filed in the House as HB0137, has been introduced in multiple sessions. The bill is sponsored by Mary Beth Carozza and Chris West, and in the House by Delegates Kaufmann, Airkan, Foley, and Taylor.

Despite repeated revisions, the bill continues to exclude psychological abuse from the core knowledge set required of custody evaluators.

That omission is not minor—and it is not accidental.

Why Psychological Abuse Matters

Psychological abuse is among the most common forms of harm alleged in custody disputes. It includes coercive control, manipulation, intimidation, and behaviors often associated with alienation. It is widely recognized in clinical literature as deeply damaging to children—often with longer-lasting effects than physical harm.

Yet under SB222, evaluators are only required to have experience in “one or more” listed competency areas. Not only is psychological abuse missing from the list, but the “one or more” standard allows an evaluator to shape custody outcomes without comprehensive training across the full spectrum of child harm.

In other words, a professional empowered to influence where a child lives, who they see, and how their family functions may lack the training to recognize the most common form of abuse playing out in high-conflict cases.

Protection Without Precision Is Not Protection

This is where broader child protection efforts begin to unravel. Lawmakers expand systems to catch more harm—but fail to refine the tools those systems rely on. The result is not smarter intervention, but broader discretion exercised on thinner expertise.

At the same time, there is little parallel emphasis on:

• Clear evidentiary thresholds
• Consequences for knowingly false or retaliatory reports
• Swift dismissal of unsubstantiated claims
• Accountability when professionals get it wrong

Once a family is pulled into the system, even a baseless allegation can reshape a child’s life permanently. Stability is disrupted. Trust erodes. And “best interests” become a moving target defined by whoever holds the pen.

A Conservative Concern—Grounded in Reality

Questioning these bills is often framed as opposition to child safety. That framing is dishonest.

A center-right perspective recognizes that strong families are the first line of child protection, and that state power—once expanded—rarely retreats. Systems that intervene aggressively without disciplined standards don’t just risk overreach; they risk missing the very harms they claim to address.

If lawmakers are serious about protecting children, they should start by ensuring that:

• Evaluators are trained in all major forms of abuse, including psychological harm
• Professional standards are raised, not diluted
• Parental rights and due process are strengthened alongside reporting mandates

The Question Still Unanswered

Before advancing yet another “child protection” bill, lawmakers should answer a simple question:

How does this legislation protect children when the system itself fails—or misfires?

Until that question is addressed directly, parents are right to remain skeptical. Because expanding authority without fixing blind spots doesn’t protect children. It entrenches systems—and leaves families paying the price.