Background
On September 16, 2024, a twenty-three-year-old mother surrendered her four-day-old twin sons at Baltimore Washington Medical Center, invoking Maryland’s Safe Haven Act. She dressed each infant in a onesie, taped a note bearing his name to him, provided hospital staff with their ages and birth information, and stated she wanted the boys placed out of her care. She did not disclose her identity, offer contact information for any other potential caregiver, or express an intent to return. Hospital staff found both infants healthy with no medical concerns.
The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services was notified the same day, took the twins into emergency shelter care the next day, and filed Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) petitions in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The mother was identified two days later through a call from the maternal grandmother. Paternity was confirmed by DNA testing in November 2024. At a de novo adjudicatory and dispositional hearing in January 2025, the mother contested the neglect finding on purely legal grounds, arguing that compliance with the Safe Haven Act could not satisfy the CINA statute’s “substantial risk of harm” standard and that the Act’s immunity from “civil liability” barred a neglect finding in any event. The juvenile court rejected both arguments, found the twins to be CINA, and committed them to the Department’s custody.
The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed in a reported decision, In re B.Cd., 267 Md. App. 61 (2025). While the appeal to the Supreme Court of Maryland was pending, the CINA cases closed and the father was awarded full custody. The Supreme Court nonetheless reached the merits, concluding that the potential collateral consequences of the neglect finding—including placement on the child-abuse registry and effects on future custody proceedings—preserved a live controversy sufficient for justiciability.
The Court’s Holding
On the first question, the Supreme Court of Maryland held that a parent who surrenders a newborn under the Safe Haven Act may be found to have neglected that child within the meaning of the CINA statute. Under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-801(t)(1), neglect includes conduct that places a child at “substantial risk of harm.” The Court reasoned that the relevant inquiry focuses not on the moment of surrender—when the infants were physically unharmed—but on the consequences that would follow absent state intervention: newborns left with no parent available, no legal custodian, and no provision for feeding, shelter, medical care, or long-term decision-making are plainly at substantial risk of harm. That the Department promptly intervened does not alter the analysis, because the focus is on the parent’s conduct, not on whether a third party subsequently ameliorated the risk.
On the second question, the Court held that the Safe Haven Act’s grant of immunity from “civil liability,” CJP § 5-641(b)(1), does not bar a CINA neglect finding. The Court found the term “civil liability” ambiguous because the Act does not define it and the dictionary definition could support either a broad or narrow reading. Turning to legislative history and the regulatory framework the Secretary of Human Services promulgated in 2003—regulations that have for over twenty years expressly required the local department to file a CINA petition upon accepting a Safe Haven newborn, COMAR 07.02.27.03(E)—the Court concluded that the General Assembly did not intend civil-liability immunity to disable the CINA process. A CINA neglect finding is a non-punitive jurisdictional predicate that allows the juvenile court to adjudicate the child’s situation and authorizes the Department to make long-term arrangements for the child’s welfare; it is not a damages judgment or enforceable civil remedy against the parent.
The Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland on both questions. Justices Watts and Eaves concurred in part and dissented in part.
Key Takeaways
- Complying with the Safe Haven Act’s surrender procedures does not immunize a parent from a CINA neglect finding; leaving a newborn without a legal custodian or long-term care plan places the child at substantial risk of harm regardless of the child’s physical condition at surrender.
- The Safe Haven Act’s immunity from “civil liability” shields a surrendering parent from civil suits and criminal prosecution for the act of abandonment, but does not reach a CINA adjudication, which is a non-punitive mechanism for the state to care for the child—not an enforceable remedy against the parent.
- The long-standing regulatory requirement that local departments file CINA petitions upon accepting Safe Haven newborns (COMAR 07.02.27.03(E)) informed the Court’s statutory construction and was given deference as a consistent agency interpretation of the Act over more than two decades.
- A CINA case is not moot simply because the underlying case closes while an appeal is pending; potential collateral consequences—including placement on the child-abuse registry and effects on future custody proceedings—preserve a live controversy.
- Under CJP § 3-819(e), even after a neglect finding is sustained against one parent, the court may award custody to the other parent without a formal CINA adjudication if that parent is able and willing to care for the child.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves a significant gap in Maryland law by clarifying that the Safe Haven Act and the CINA statute operate in tandem, not in conflict. Without the ability to make a CINA neglect finding, the Department would lack the statutory authority to assume legal custody of abandoned newborns and arrange for their long-term care—because a CINA petition is the only mechanism through which the juvenile court can grant that authority. The ruling confirms that civil-liability immunity was designed to protect Safe Haven parents from lawsuits and criminal prosecution, not to disable the child-welfare system from acting on behalf of the very infants the Act was meant to protect.
For family law practitioners, the decision is also a reminder that even well-intentioned, statutorily authorized conduct can give rise to CINA proceedings with lasting consequences. The Court’s acknowledgment that a neglect finding carries collateral effects—on child-abuse registries, foster-care eligibility, and future custody litigation—underscores the importance of advising clients who invoke the Safe Haven Act that participation in subsequent CINA proceedings may be both legally unavoidable and strategically necessary to protect parental rights.