.webp)
.png)
In Maryland, just as in all other states throughout the union, the law has been developed to promote healthy parenting so that children can grow up in an optimal environment. Maryland law has numerous concepts which have been put into place specifically in order to guard against negative forms of parenting, such as parental neglect. If a parent is found to be neglecting his or her child, the child may be deemed a “child in need of assistance,” or CINA, and the ramifications of such a finding can be very significant. If a child is found to suffer from neglect and be classified as CINA, the parent responsible may face civil liability based on whatever consequences follow from that neglect.
The State of Maryland also has something called the “Safe Haven Act,” which essentially allows parents to surrender custody of their children when they are conscious of the fact that they will not be able to provide adequate parental care. Normally, when parents surrender children under this act, they are insulated from certain legal consequences which might otherwise follow from faulty parenting.
What happens when a parent surrenders a child under the Safe Haven Act, but their child is still classified as CINA and there is a determination of parental neglect? This was the issue raised in the recent case of BCd v. BCb (2026). Let’s explore this case in detail.
Facts of the Case
A mother chose to voluntarily surrender her newborn twins to a hospital in Maryland under the Safe Haven Act. All rules of the act had been complied with properly, but subsequent to this surrendering of the children a formal inquiry was made by the state welfare office regarding neglect. The welfare agency ultimately made a determination that the children had been “neglected” pursuant to the state’s definition because they had been left without any custodian and the mother did not have an immediate care plan. Further, the children were both classified as CINA because of this neglect.
The mother tried to argue that a CINA finding was improper because she voluntarily surrendered the children pursuant to the Safe Haven Act. She claimed that she should also be insulated from “civil liability” for this same reason. At the trial court level, the mother was unsuccessful, and a finding of neglect was made. The mother appealed and ultimately the case made its way to the Maryland Supreme Court.
Ruling & Analysis
Given that this case was reviewed by the Maryland Supreme Court, readers should take notice and know that the issues involved in this case are obviously quite serious. On review, the majority of the justices concurred that the mother had indeed been neglectful, and upheld the CINA classification. Even though the mother had wisely utilized the Safe Haven Act, the fact that she left the children without a custodian or care plan meant that a determination of neglect was warranted. However, the justices noted that, although a finding of neglect had been made, this finding merely triggered protective state oversight, it did not necessarily lead to a civil penalty.
It’s important to note that there was a dissenting opinion which argued that the mother’s decision to voluntarily transfer the children pursuant to the Safe Haven Act should have prevented a neglect finding, just as the mother argued.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Resources
Readers who want to learn more about the details of the Safe Haven Act, parenting time division issues, custody related disputes, or any other pertinent family law matter, contact one of the family law attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
