Maryland Adopts New Statutory Factors to Determine Child Custody

On May 15, 2025, Governor Wes Moore approved House Bill 1191, which is set to go into effect on October 1, 2025. The Bill is significant because, for the first time, the Maryland State Legislature has adopted its own list of factors that Maryland judges must consider when they determine physical and legal custody of minor children.

In Maryland, the custody of a minor child is determined by a judge, who bases their custody decision on what they believe is in the “best interest of the child.” The phrase “best interest of the child,” on its own is ambiguous, but over the years, the courts in Maryland developed a list of factors for judges to consider when attempting to establish this “best interest” standard.

Now, through the passage of House Bill 1191, the Maryland State Legislature has adopted its own list of custody factors that judges must consider when determining what custody arrangement is in the best interest of a minor child. The new statutory language includes the following list of mandatory factors:

9–201(A).

Factors:

(1) Stability and the foreseeable health and welfare of the child;

(2) Frequent, regular, and continuing contact with parents who can act in the child’s best interest;

(3) Whether and how parents who do not live together will share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child;

(4) The child’s relationship with each parent, any siblings, other relatives, and individuals who are or may become important in the child’s life;

(5) The child’s physical and emotional security and protection from exposure to conflict and violence;

(6) The child’s developmental needs, including physical safety, emotional security, positive self–image, interpersonal skills, and intellectual and cognitive growth;

(7) The day–to–day needs of the child, including education, socialization, culture and religion, food, shelter, clothing, and mental and physical health;

(8) How to:

(I) Place the child’s needs above the parents’ needs;

(II) Protect the child from the negative effects of any conflict between the parents; and

(III) Maintain the child’s relationship with the parents, siblings, other relatives, or other individuals who have or likely may have a significant relationship with the child;

(9) The age of the child;

(10) Any military deployment of a parent and its effect, if any, on the parent–child relationship;

(11) Any prior court orders or agreements;

(12) Each parent’s role and tasks related to the child and how, if at all, those roles and tasks have changed;

(13) The location of each parent’s home as it relates to the parent’s ability to coordinate parenting time, school, and activities;

(14) The parents’ relationship with each other, including:

(I) How they communicate with each other;

(II) Whether they can co–parent without disrupting the child’s social and school life; and

(III) How the parents will resolve any disputes in the future without the need for court intervention;

(15) The child’s preference, if age–appropriate; and

(16) Any other factor that the court considers appropriate in determining how best to serve the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of the child.

(B) The court shall articulate its findings of fact on the record or in a written opinion, including the consideration of each factor listed in subsection (a) of this section and any other factor that the court considered.

The factors listed above are not word-for-word identical to those previously established by the courts. However, the new factors are largely similar in content and scope.

It is important to note that the new factors also state that a judge may consider “any other factor that the court considers appropriate in determining how best to serve the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of the child.” This means that a judge has wide discretion to consider other factors that he or she may believe to be relevant in a particular child custody situation. Therefore, while the court is required to “articulate” its findings of fact as to each of the custody factors listed above, the court is not limited in its consideration to this list of factors.

Modification of Custody

In addition to providing a new list of custody factors, House Bill 1191 also addresses modification of child custody. The custody of a minor child is always subject to modification by the court. Prior to the new House Bill, the requirements for modification of child custody were also left to be defined through the courts.

Over the years, the courts established a two-step process to determine whether a custody arrangement should be modified or not. First, the requesting party had to show that there has been a material change in circumstances since the entry of the most recent custody order. Then, if the requesting party could establish a material change in circumstances, the court would proceed with a best interest of the child analysis (as described above) to determine whether custody should be modified.

The new House Bill essentially adopts and memorializes in the laws of state the standard for modification that was previously established through the courts. It reads as follows:

9-202.

(A) The court may modify, in accordance with the provisions of this subtitle, a child custody or visitation order if the court determines that there has been a material change in circumstances since the issuance of the order that relates to the needs of the child or the ability of the parents to meet those needs and that modifying the order is in the best interest of the child.

(B) A parent’s proposal to relocate the residence of the parent or the child in a way that would cause physical custody to be impracticable constitutes a material change in circumstances.

The new Section 9-202(B) also specifically states that if a party is seeking to relocate, and that relocation would make the current custody arrangement impracticable to continue in, then that relocation may constitute a material change in circumstances.

Every custody case is going to be different depending on the specific circumstances of the parents and their children. The new House Bill does not define “material change in circumstances,” nor does it define what is “impracticable,” when it comes to a parent’s relocation. These are concepts that will be left to the discretion of a judge and the judge’s review of the facts and circumstances of each custody specific case before them.

At the Law Office of Shelly M. Ingram, our Fulton, Maryland divorce attorneys work with families to establish and modify custody arrangements so that parents can rest assured that their children's needs are met now and in the future. All of our attorneys are trained in collaborative law, mediation, and traditional litigation. We will work closely with you to find a strategy that will help you achieve the best possible outcome for you and your children.