In September 2024, Ms. C, a 23-year-old woman, and mother of two older children, gave birth to twins. At the time, overwhelmed and without adequate support, she felt that she could not give the twins the life she wanted them to have. She researched her options and found the Maryland Safe Haven Law, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) § 5-641, which promises immunity from civil and criminal prosecution when a parent surrenders their unharmed newborn at a designated facility within 60 days after birth. Four days later, Ms. C took her healthy twins to a hospital and surrendered them to the hospital staff, providing all necessary information, in accordance with Maryland’s Safe Haven law.

Despite the law’s promises of immunity, Ms. C was nonetheless prosecuted by the Baltimore Child Welfare system in Maryland’s juvenile court. She faced a civil petition alleging she had neglected the twins by utilizing the Safe Haven law, and the court issued a neglect finding pursuant to the Child-In-Need-of-Assistance (“CINA”) statute, CJP §§ 3-801, et seq. This finding is accompanied by lasting punishment for Ms. C, including placement on a registry that prohibits certain jobs, and the threat that the family policing system could more easily remove her older or future children.

Ms. C appealed the finding of neglect, arguing that the plain language of the law prohibited such a finding.  In August 2025, the Appellate Court of Maryland denied Ms. C’s appeal and affirmed the juvenile court’s finding of neglect. On September 29, 2025, Ms. C filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Maryland Supreme Court to review the court’s decision, urging the Court to clarify that a parent who acts in conformity with the law cannot be found to have neglected their child. Specifically, Ms. C argued that following the Safe Haven guidelines does not place a child in “substantial risk of harm,” and that civil liability includes a CINA finding of neglect.

On October 6, 2025, CCR co-authored an amicus brief along with Movement for Family Power and Civil Rights Corps, in support of Ms. C’s petition for certiorari, urging the Maryland Supreme Court to review the juvenile court’s decision. The brief explains that the CINA Statute comprises a part of the “child welfare system”—what advocates often call the family policing, or family regulation, system—which disproportionately harms poor families and families of color. The brief outlines the history of the family policing system, and explains how CINA’s historical lineage is deeply rooted in anti-Black racism. The brief demonstrates how CINA is a system that punishes, rather than supports, families, and argues that interpreting the Safe Haven statute as the Appellate Court suggests will discourage pregnant people from utilizing the program for fear of the collateral consequences of a neglect finding.

Ms. C is represented by the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD). The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), the ACLU of Maryland, Angela Burton, Black Families Love & Unite, Blessings in Transformation, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law Family Defense Clinic, Dorothy Roberts, Elephant Circle, JMACforFamilies, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Mining for Gold, the MJCF: Coalition, Operation Stop CPS, South East Family Freedom Alliance, UpEND, and The Bronx Defenders signed on to the amicus brief.