EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MAT TER ADDED TO EXISTIN G LAW.
[Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
*sb0663*
SENATE BILL 663
D4 4lr2531
HB 1386/16 – JUD
By: Senator Charles
Introduced and read first time: January 29, 2024
Assigned to: Judicial Proceedings
A BILL ENTITLED
AN ACT concerning 1
Child Custody – Rebuttable Presumption of Joint Custody 2
FOR the purpose of establishing a rebuttable presumption in certain child custody 3
proceedings that certain custodial arrangements are in the best interests of a child 4
and establishing factors a court may consider when determining the best interests 5
of the child; authorizing the court to award sole custody under certain circumstances 6
based on a preponderance of the evidence after entering factors considered by the 7
court on the record; requiring the court to award visitation in a certain manner under 8
certain circumstances; and generally relating to child custody determinations. 9
BY adding to 10
Article – Family Law 11
Section 9–109 12
Annotated Code of Maryland 13
(2019 Replacement Volume and 2023 Supplement) 14
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, 15
That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 16
Article – Family Law 17
9–109. 18
(A) IN AN INITIAL CHILD C USTODY PROCEEDING , WHETHER PENDENTE LIT E 19
OR PERMANENT , INVOLVING THE PARENT S OF A CHILD, REGARDLESS OF A PARE NT’S 20
MARITAL STATUS OR GE NDER, THERE IS A REBUTTABL E PRESUMPTION THAT : 21
(1) JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY IS IN THE BEST INTER ESTS OF THE CHILD ; 22
AND 23
2 SENATE BILL 663
(2) JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTO DY FOR APPROXIMATELY EQUAL PERIODS 1
OF TIME IS IN THE BE ST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD. 2
(B) IN DETERMINING THE BE ST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, THE COURT MAY 3
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWI NG FACTORS: 4
(1) THE PREFERENCES OF T HE CHILD IF THE COUR T DETERMINES 5
THAT THE CHILD IS OF A SUFFICIENT EMO TIONAL MATURITY AND MENTAL CAPACITY 6
REGARDLESS OF THE AG E OF THE CHILD; 7
(2) THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RESIDENCES OF TH E PARENTS; 8
(3) THE DISTANCE BETWEEN EACH PARENT ’S RESIDENCE AND THE 9
CHILD’S SCHOOL; 10
(4) THE FLEXIBILITY OF E ACH PARENT’S WORK SCHEDULE; 11
(5) EACH PARENT ’S ABILITY TO ASSIST WITH AFTER SCHOOL CA RE; 12
AND 13
(6) ANY OTHER FACTOR THE COURT FINDS RELEVANT . 14
(C) (1) IF THE COURT DETERMIN ES BY A PREPONDERANC E OF THE 15
EVIDENCE THAT A JOIN T CUSTODY ARRANGEMEN T IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS 16
OF THE CHILD, THE COURT: 17
(I) MAY AWARD SOLE CUSTO DY TO ONE PARENT ; AND 18
(II) SHALL ENTER ON THE R ECORD THE FACTORS CO NSIDERED 19
BY THE COURT IN REAC HING ITS DECISION. 20
(2) WHEN THE COURT DETERM INES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 21
PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECT ION, THAT JOINT CUSTODY I S NOT IN THE BEST 22
INTERESTS OF THE CHI LD, THE COURT SHALL AWAR D VISITATION IN A MA NNER 23
THAT ENSURES FREQUEN T AND CONTINUING CON TACT BETWEEN THE CHI LD AND 24
THE NONCUSTODIAL PAR ENT. 25
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Ac t shall take effect 26
October 1, 2024. 27