Open Letter to Delegate Charlotte A. Crutchfield of Montgomery County, Maryland
Good evening Delegate Crutchfield,
My name is Hera McLeod. I'm a domestic violence survivor and child safety advocate who has been advocating for the safety of Maryland's children since 2012 when my son Prince was brutally murdered by his father (during his fourth, court ordered unsupervised visit). My son was sentenced to death in the Montgomery County, MD family court after former Maryland Judge Michael Algeo ignored dangerous patterns of domestic violence against women and children, assault, fraud, and several suspicious murders. You can learn more about my story, platform, and very public advocacy at www.heramcleod.com.
I'm writing to express my concern that MD House Bill 405 ("Family Law - Child Custody Evaluators - Qualifications and Training") will not be put up for a vote this session. I've been following this bill for years, and continue to see it silenced before anyone has the chance to see how delegates would vote. While I understand that Delegate Luke H. Clippinger is the chair of the Judiciary Committee (I have cc'd him and House Speaker Addrienne A. Jones on this communication), I have addressed this letter to you as the delegate who led the sub committee meeting the other day where this bill was discussed and there was a suggestion of "tabling the bill".
The most vocal opposition to Maryland House Bill 405 has come from Montgomery County, Maryland’s Judge Kathleen Dumais whose central argument seems to be that the requirements included in the bill already exist in the rules. While it seems like a conflict of interest for a current sitting judge to influence legislation in this way, this hasn't stopped her continuous efforts to block this child protective, common sense legislation (she also advocated against the Judge training bill - which passed and now requires child abuse training for judges in statute).
What the opposition has refused to acknowledge is the loophole in the rules that allows judges the option to ignore all the requirements for custody evaluators that are listed in the rules - and instead, appoint someone without qualifications and training in child abuse to evaluate a case involving child abuse.
The judges would have us believe that allowing them to waive the requirements is not a danger because "why would they ever do that"? That's an excellent question that I truly wish the public had answers to - but what we know is that:
Maryland Judges have waived the rules on this issue.
There is data proving that they continue to do this.
This loophole allowing judges to appoint unqualified custody evaluators is harming Maryland's children.
During the sub-committee hearing that I viewed yesterday via this youtube link here, I was deeply disappointed at what I saw. The recent amendment to the bill was discussed with a gross inaccuracy.
[Note: The amendment actually addresses the issue that if a qualified custody evaluator cannot be appointed (because there aren't enough - which is a whole separate issue that can and should be addressed subsequent to this bill), the judge doesn't have to appoint a custody evaluator at all.]
I think tax paying citizens in Maryland would be appalled to learn that Maryland Judges want to retain the power to appoint custody evaluators without training in the area they are being asked to evaluate - simply to check a box and be able to point to someone else when they have to make hard decisions and stand behind those decisions.
In the sub-committee hearing I refer to above, you mentioned the need to work on the bill. I'd like to better understand what room there is here for changes when it appears as though we've reached an impasse. This bill boils down to this:
We all seem to agree (at least publicly) that custody evaluators who are evaluating cases involving child abuse should be trained on the issues they are being asked to evaluate.
Where we do NOT agree, is whether this should be a suggestion (which would be the status quo, given that judges currently can decide to summarily ignore the rules) in the rules OR instead be a requirement in statute.
There is no amount of drafting and iterating that will change those two fundamental points. And given that this bill has been drafted, re-drafted, amended....for several sessions previously. I respectfully ask that we allow this to go to a vote. If delegates decide they are willing to allow the current status quo to persist, they vote "no" - and their "no" will be on the public record as it should be. And we can move forward together from there, with at least a better understanding on where each delegate stands on this issue.
But saying things like "we need more time" or "we need to come together and draft this again" or "maybe we should table this" - gives a perception that policymakers are avoiding making decisions about issues Maryland voters care about -- decisions that impact the lives of innocent children.
When this bill came before the House Judiciary Committee, I testified along with several other survivors - including a 14 year old child and another child survivor who is now a young adult. It is not easy to walk through our trauma for the sake of progress and reform, but we do it because someone has to do it. I do it because I made my son a promise on his deathbed that I would keep fighting so that no other child would have to endure what he did.
If this bill is not going to go up for a vote, I respectfully request an answer as to why. I think all of us who've worked hard on this deserve answers.
Sincerely,
Hera McLeod (Prince's Mother)
Prince McLeod, age 10 months (five months before he was suffocated to death)
