IN re: B.Cd. & B.Cb.

In re: B.Cd. & B.Cb., No. 47, September Term, 2025. Opinion by Killough, J. FAMILY LAW – CINA – SAFE HAVEN ACT – NEGLECT The Supreme Court of Maryland held that a parent who surrenders a newborn pursuant to the Safe Haven Act may be found to have neglected that child within the meaning of the Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) statute where the surrendered newborn has no legal custodian and no provision for long-term care upon hospital discharge, thereby placing the child at a substantial risk of harm. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 3-801(t)(1) (2024), 5-641 (2024). FAMILY LAW – CINA – SAFE HAVEN ACT – CIVIL LIABILITY – IMMUNITY The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the Safe Haven Act’s immunity from “civil liability” does not bar a CINA neglect finding, which is the non-punitive jurisdictional predicate that allows the juvenile court to adjudicate the child’s case and grant the local department of social services the authority to make long-term arrangements for the child’s needs. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-641(b)(1) (2024). Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No.: C-02-JV-24-000463 Case No.: C-02-JV-24-000464 Argued: March 6, 2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 47 September Term, 2025 ______________________________________ IN RE: B.CD. & B.CB. ______________________________________ Fader, C.J., Watts, Booth, Biran, Gould, Eaves, Killough, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Killough, J. Watts and Eaves, JJ., concur and dissent. ______________________________________ Filed: July 15, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.07.15 15:25:54 -04'00' Gregory Hilton, Clerk  The Maryland Safe Haven Act, codified at Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) § 5-641, (2020 Repl. Vol.), permits a parent to surrender an unharmed newborn at a designated facility within sixty days of birth, free from criminal prosecution or civil liability for the act of surrender. Within 24 hours after accepting the newborn, the hospital or other designated facility that accepts the newborn must notify the local department of social services. Id. at § 5-641(c) (2). Where a newborn is dropped off at a designated facility in accordance with the Safe Haven Act, that person “shall be immune from civil liability or criminal prosecution[.]” Id. at § 5-641 (b)(1). Under the regulations adopted to implement the Safe Haven Program, a local department of social services is required to file a “child in need of assistance” (“CINA”) petition with the juvenile court. COMAR 07.02.27.03(E). The CINA statute provides the legal framework through which the State cares for, protects, and finds a permanent home for a surrendered newborn. CJP § 3-801 (2024). In order for a juvenile court to adjudicate a child who was abandoned at a designated facility under the Safe Haven Act to be a CINA, the court must make a finding of “neglect,” that is, the child has been “placed at substantial risk of harm.” Id. at § 3- 801(f)(1), (t)(1). Petitioner A.C. (“Mother”) surrendered her four-day-old twin sons, B.Cd. and B.Cb., at Baltimore Washington Medical Center (“BWMC”), pursuant to the Safe Haven Act on September 16, 2024. The Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services (the “Department”) took custody and filed CINA petitions. Mother was subsequently identified and participated fully in the proceedings. At the de novo adjudicatory and disposition hearing, she contested the neglect finding on statutory interpretation grounds. She also invoked CJP § 3-819(e) and requested that custody be awarded to Father. The juvenile court found that Mother’s actions constituted neglect, denied her CJP § 3-819(e) motion to award custody to Father, and committed the children to the Department’s custody. Mother timely appealed the circuit court’s CINA finding to the Appellate Court of Maryland, which affirmed in a reported decision. In re B.Cd., 267 Md. App. 61 (2025). While the appeal was pending, the CINA case closed, and Father was awarded full custody.1 We granted certiorari to address the following questions, In re: B.Cd & B.Cb., 492 Md. 646 (2025): 1. Does a parent neglect their child—i.e., place them at “substantial risk of harm”— when they act in line with Maryland’s Safe Haven Program? 2. Is a CINA neglect finding a “civil liability” against which the Safe Haven Program provides a shield? For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court of Maryland. I. Factual and Procedural Background A. The Surrender and Initial CINA Proceedings Twins boys, B.Cd. and B.Cb. (the “Twins”), were born on September 12, 2024, at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Mother, a twenty-three-year-old woman who 1 Although the CINA case underlying this appeal closed on April 7, 2025, the CINA framework does not merely protect the child. It protects the parent as well. Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to the care and custody of their children. Therefore, we conclude that the appeal is not moot. The potential for collateral consequences of the neglect finding preserve a live controversy sufficient to maintain justiciability. See In re Kaela C., 394 Md. 432, 453 (2006) (citation omitted) (“Where . . . it seems apparent that a party may suffer collateral consequences from a trial court’s judgment, the case is not moot.”). We therefore proceed to the merits. 2 was raising two other children, brought the Twins to BWMC on September 16, 2024— four days after their birth. She dressed each child in a onesie, taped a note with each child’s name to him, and told hospital staff the Twins’ ages and information about their birth. She did not disclose her identity, did not provide information about other potential caregivers, and did not express an intent to return. She specifically told staff she was invoking the Safe Haven Act and wanted the Twins placed out of her care. Hospital staff evaluated the children and found them “healthy” with “no medical concerns.” BWMC notified the Department on September 16, 2024. The following day, the Department took the Twins into emergency shelter care and placed them in an approved foster home. On September 18, the Department filed a CINA petition for each Twin in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, sitting as the juvenile court, requesting continued shelter care. A magistrate held a shelter care hearing that same day, recommended that the court authorize the Department to assume temporary custody, and the court so ordered. See Md. Rule 11-103(a)(1), (3). On September 19, 2024—two days after the surrender—the Department received a call from the Twins’ maternal grandmother, who identified Mother. Mother spoke with the Department on that call, explaining that she had surrendered the Twins due to concerns about domestic violence from the children’s father. The Department also learned Father’s identity in part because, in late September 2024, Father had filed a custody action in circuit court seeking custody of the Twins. That action, however, could not establish Father’s parental rights until paternity was confirmed through DNA testing and adjudicated on the merits. That process required service of process, a DNA confirmation hearing, and a merits hearing—none of which could have produced emergency relief for these newborns. On 3 October 9, 2024, the Department contacted Mother to ask whether she was willing to complete maternity testing, and she agreed to do so. During the same conversation, she indicated her desire to reunify with her children. The Department amended the CINA petitions to reflect the putative parents’ identities, noting that DNA testing was pending. A magistrate held an adjudicatory hearing on October 18, 2024. Because DNA results had not yet returned, Mother and Father were not yet parties. The magistrate recommended sustaining the adjudicatory facts and, after the Department’s unopposed motion, deferred disposition pending the DNA results. In early November 2024, genetic testing confirmed that Mother and Father were the biological parents of B.Cd. and B.Cb. At the disposition hearing on November 15, 2024, the magistrate recommended the Twins be declared CINA and, due to concerns about Mother’s decision to surrender the children as well as Father’s criminal history and the domestic violence allegations against him, recommended commitment to the Department’s custody instead of either parent. Both parents filed exceptions and invoked their rights to a de novo hearing. Md. Rule 11-103(e). B. The De Novo Hearing and Disposition On January 14, 2025, the circuit court held a de novo adjudicatory and disposition hearing. The Department called the two caseworkers on the Twins’ case as witnesses. The Department introduced the Twins’ birth certificates and DNA results establishing parentage. Mother argued that her actions did not satisfy the statutory definition of neglect and that, in any event, the Safe Haven Act’s immunity from civil liability precluded a neglect finding. She introduced no evidence. She litigated the case entirely on the legal question of statutory interpretation. 4  The juvenile court rejected Mother’s arguments. It found that Mother’s actions constituted neglect, stating: I think the mere leaving the children even in a safe place . . . is neglectful . . . I think when you leave a child with that little information, especially a four day old child, that is placing a child in substantial risk because how does the one receiving the child know . . . anything about the child[.] The court further determined that an interpretation of the Safe Haven Act that would prevent a CINA proceeding would lead to an illogical result, because it would bar a neglect finding even in cases where the parents were never identified. At disposition, Mother invoked CJP § 3-819(e) and requested that custody be awarded to Father rather than the Department, acknowledging that “today is not the day that the children should be coming to her.” Subsection (e) permits the court to award custody to the other parent in lieu of declaring a child a CINA. On January 16, 2025, the juvenile court denied Mother’s § 3-819(e) motion, found the Twins to be CINA and committed them to the Department’s custody. Both parents appealed. On April 7, 2025, while the appeal was pending, the CINA cases were terminated with Father obtaining full custody. C. The Appellate Court The Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court in a reported opinion. In re B.Cd., 267 Md. App. at 61. On the question of whether the conduct of a person who follows the Safe Haven Program can support a finding of “neglect” under the CINA statute, the court noted that “Maryland law is clear that ‘a finding of neglect may be based on a substantial risk of harm to the child if the [Department of Social Services] does not take charge of the child.’” Id. at 88 (alteration in original) (quoting Doe v. Allegany Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. 5 Servs., 205 Md. App. 47, 60 (2012)). The court explained that under the reasoning in Doe, a finding of statutory neglect may focus “on the impact the actions of [the parents] could have had on [the child] had the local department not taken charge of [the child].” Id. (alternations in original) (quoting Doe, 205 Md. App. at 60). Applying this reasoning, the court concluded that Mother neglected the Twins not at the moment of surrender but when she “failed and refused to make herself available to render proper care and attention” upon their discharge. Id. at 93 n.6. Turning to Mother’s assertion that a statutory finding of “neglect” under CINA is at odds with the immunity from “civil liability” provided under the Safe Haven Act, the Appellate Court determined that the term “civil liability” was ambiguous. Id. at 95-96. The court examined the legislative history, as well as the regulatory framework that had been in place for over twenty years. Id. at 97-98. The court concluded that Mother’s interpretation of the Safe Haven Act would lead to an absurd result, because the CINA framework is the only mechanism by which the Department can legally intervene to care for abandoned children. Id. at 96-100. II. Standard of Review This Court reviews CINA determinations under three interrelated standards: factual findings are reviewed for clear error; questions of law are reviewed de novo; and mixed questions of law and fact, if based on correct legal principles and factual findings that are not clearly erroneous, are reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re T.K., 480 Md. 122, 143 (2022). 6  Both questions presented are pure questions of statutory construction, which are reviewed de novo. Ledford v. Jenway Contracting, Inc., 490 Md. 666, 680 (2025). Because Mother introduced no evidence and contested only a legal question, there are no factual findings to review for clear error; the underlying facts were uncontested. III. Discussion A. Legal Framework 1. CINA Statute The CINA statute provides the legal framework through which the State protects children who lack adequate care. See CJP § 3-802(a)(1), (3); In re M.Z., 490 Md. 140, 143–44 (2025). The statute’s purposes include “[t]o provide for the care, protection, safety, and mental and physical development of any child coming within” its provisions and “[t]o conserve and strengthen the child’s family ties and to separate a child from the child’s parents only when necessary for the child’s welfare.” CJP § 3-802(a)(1), (3). A child qualifies as a CINA when court intervention is required because (1) the child has been abused, neglected, has a developmental disability, or has a mental disorder, and (2) the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to give proper care and attention to the child and the child’s needs. CJP § 3-801(f)(1), (2). “Neglect” means: the leaving of a child unattended or other failure to give proper care and attention to a child by any parent or individual who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of the child under circumstances that indicate: (i) That the child’s health or welfare is harmed or placed at substantial risk of harm; or (ii) That the child has suffered mental injury or been placed at substantial risk of mental injury. 7 CJP § 3-801(t)(1).2 A CINA case proceeds in two phases. At the adjudicatory hearing, the Department must prove by a preponderance that the child falls within one of the enumerated categories of CJP § 3-801(f)(1). At the subsequent disposition hearing, the court determines whether court intervention is required and, if so, the appropriate placement. See In re T.K., 480 Md. at 134-35. If the allegations are not sustained, the court must dismiss the petition. CJP § 3-819(b)(1)(i). If the allegations are sustained against only one parent and the other is able and willing to care for the child, the court may award custody to that parent before dismissing without a CINA finding. CJP § 3-819(e). 2. Safe Haven Act The Maryland General Assembly enacted the Maryland Safe Haven Act in 2002. Md. Laws, Ch. 441 (codified as amended at CJP § 5-641). The Safe Haven Act provides in relevant part: (b)(1) A person who leaves an unharmed newborn with a responsible adult or at a designated facility within 60 days after the birth of the newborn, as determined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and does not express an intent to return for the newborn shall be immune from civil liability or criminal prosecution for the act. (2) If the person leaving a newborn under this subsection is not the mother of the newborn, the person must have the approval of the mother to do so. * * * * (d) A responsible adult and a designated facility that accepts a newborn under this section and an employee or agent of the facility shall be immune from 2 The General Assembly amended CJP § 3-801 to redesignate, without change, CJP § 3-801(s) as CJP § 3-801(t), effective October 1, 2024. Although Mother placed the Twins in the Safe Haven Program before October 1, 2024, we refer to the current subsection for clarity. 8  civil liability or criminal prosecution for good faith actions taken related to the acceptance of or medical treatment or care of the newborn unless injury to the newborn was caused by gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. * * * * (f) The Secretary of Human Services shall adopt regulations to implement the provisions of this section. CJP § 5-641. Pursuant to subsection (f), the Secretary promulgated implementing regulations in 2003 at COMAR 07.02.27.01-.03. The Department’s regulations describe the program’s purpose as providing a mother “the opportunity to provide a safe abandonment of her newborn.” COMAR 07.02.27.01(A). Relevant provisions of COMAR 07.02.27.03 provide as follows: C. The hospital or other designated facility that accepts a newborn shall notify the LDSS [local department of social services] within 24 hours after accepting the newborn. D. The LDSS in the jurisdiction where the hospital is located shall take responsibility of the newborn when medically ready for discharge under an OSC [Order of Shelter Care]. E. A CINA petition shall be filed by the LDSS on behalf of the abandoned newborn in the jurisdiction where the hospital is located in conjunction with the request for an OSC. F. A Child Protective Services investigation shall be initiated if the mother, father, or relative of the newborn comes forth to identify the newborn and requests that the newborn be placed in the individual's care. G. The child shall remain in the care of the LDSS under an OSC with a CINA finding and commitment to the LDSS pending the outcome of the investigation. COMAR 07.02.27.03(C)–(G) (emphasis added). 9  With the applicable statutory framework in mind, we turn to the parties’ arguments. B. Parties’ Contentions Mother asserts that by “leav[ing] [] unharmed newborn[s] with a responsible adult or at a designated facility” in accordance with Subsection 5-641(b)(1) of the Safe Haven Act, she did not place the Twins “at substantial risk of harm” and thus, did not neglect them. According to Mother, a parent does not neglect—i.e., does not place a child at substantial risk of harm—by placing them unharmed with a responsible adult or at a designated facility. According to Mother, she acted precisely within the instructions given by the Safe Haven Program, which was created by the Safe Haven Act, and her care plan did not pose any risk—much less a “substantial risk”—to the Twins’ well-being under the CINA statute. For its part, the Department points out that it can take custody of a child only if the juvenile court finds the child to be a CINA, and the court cannot make that finding unless it determines that “[t]he child has been abused, has been neglected, has a developmental disability, or has a mental disorder.” CJP § 3-801(f)(1). The Department further explains that, because the newborn must be unharmed when left with a responsible adult or at a designated facility, the court cannot make a finding of “abuse” when the Safe Haven Act is followed. Thus, the Department, reasons, absent evidence that the newborn has a “developmental disability” or a “mental disorder,” a juvenile court could only find a newborn, left pursuant to the Safe Haven Act, to be a CINA on the basis that the newborn has been “neglected.” Citing Doe, 205 Md. App. at 47, the Department argues that Maryland precedent establishes that, as a matter of law, a parent or other caregiver who abandons an otherwise 10 helpless but unharmed child to the custody of the local department of social services has neglected the child. The Department argues that abandonment of newborns under the Safe Haven Act constitutes “neglect,” because absent the Department’s intervention, the Twins would have been left completely helpless. Therefore, the Department asserts, Mother’s actions placed the Twins at substantial risk of harm and the juvenile court correctly found that the Twins had been neglected. Mother also argues that a finding of neglect in a CINA case would violate the Safe Haven Act’s immunity “from civil liability.” Mother cites to the definition of “liability” from Black’s Law Dictionary as “the quality, state, or condition of being legally obligated or accountable.” Liability, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). According to Mother, a CINA neglect finding is a finding that the parent has failed in their obligation of providing appropriate care and attention to a child and is thus encompassed within the definition of “civil liability.” In support of her statutory argument, Mother points to direct and collateral consequences that can flow from a CINA finding. Direct consequences of a CINA action can include the loss of custody of a child, and an order to pay support. According to Mother, collateral consequences of a CINA finding include (1) the inclusion of the parent on the state’s child abuse registry under Family Law Article (“FL”) § 5-714 (2017), (2) the adverse impact on an individual’s qualification to become a foster parent, (3) the ability of a parent to maintain a parental relationship with other children, and (4) the shifting of the burden of proof to a parent at hearings regarding visitation with or custody of other children under FL § 9-101. 11  Mother also asserts that a neglect finding under CINA would be contrary to the legislative intent of the Safe Haven Act. Mother directs us to the purpose of the Act, which “is to provide the mother of a newborn the opportunity to provide a safe abandonment of her newborn by . . . [p]roviding immunity from civil liability and criminal prosecution for a mother who leaves an unharmed newborn with a responsible adult under certain circumstances[.]” Mother argues that, by subjecting a parent to a judicial finding of neglect in a CINA proceeding, such a statutory interpretation creates a disincentive for a party to rely upon the Safe Haven Act in direct contravention of the plain language and intent of the statute. Finally, Mother argues that precluding a CINA neglect finding in a case arising under the Safe Haven Act will not “prevent a CINA case,” as suggested by the juvenile court. According to Mother, the Department can properly take custody of the child under CJP § 3-815(a), which authorizes shelter care. Then, Mother asserts, the Department can proceed in one of three ways: (1) if the parents are unknown, the Department can proceed to file a petition for guardianship under FL § 5-313, which can lead to adoption; (2) if the parents consent, the Department can file for guardianship under FL § 5-320(a)(1)(iii)(1); or (3) if one or both parents desire custody, the child can be returned as the Department has no legal basis for holding the child. In response, the Department argues that a CINA finding of neglect does not impose “civil liability” on the parent. The Department relies on the definition of “liability” in Black's Law Dictionary as “[t]he quality, state, or condition of being legally obligated or accountable . . ., enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment.” In re B.Cd., 267 Md. App. at 94. According to the Department, Mother has made no showing that the 12 neglect finding by the juvenile court imposed any specific legal responsibility on her enforceable by any civil or criminal remedy. The Department points out that a CINA finding requires a finding of both past abuse or neglect and a present inability or unwillingness of both parents to provide proper care. In addition, the Department argues that a CINA neglect finding cannot be affected by what Mother has identified as “collateral consequences,” because Mother has not adduced any evidence that she has suffered or will suffer any such consequence. With respect to legislative intent, the Department argues that the “narrow” purpose of the Safe Haven Act was to “‘prevent newborn deaths’ that result when parents abandon newborn infants in public places.” The Department contends that to effectuate such purpose, the Act provides for (1) immunity from criminal prosecution for desertion of a child or for causing a child to become a CINA, and (2) immunity from civil liability for the “act” of leaving an unharmed newborn without an expressed intention to return, an act which would not otherwise be protected by the common-law doctrine of parent-child immunity. Finally, the Department argues that Mother’s interpretation of “civil liability” would lead to an absurd result by rendering the local department and juvenile courts powerless to protect a newborn in a CINA proceeding. The Department points out that a CINA petition for an unharmed newborn cannot proceed unless the child is found to be neglected, and that a guardianship petition under FL § 5-313 suggested by Mother cannot be pursued absent a judicial finding that the newborn was a CINA. The Department argues that the General Assembly did not vest authority in the hospital or another designated facility to 13 assume custody of the child and did not provide a mechanism separate from the CINA proceeding for the local department to assume custody. C. Statutory Construction As noted above, the issues in this case present questions of law that we consider without deference to the decisions of the juvenile court or the Appellate Court. To answer Mother’s questions, we must examine the meaning of the word “neglect” in the context of the CINA statute, CJP § 3-801(f)(1), as well as the meaning of the phrase “immune from liability” under the Safe Haven Act, CJP § 5-641. “As in any question of statutory interpretation, the goal is to discern and implement the intent of the Legislature.” In re O.P., 470 Md. 225, 255 (2020). We begin, as we must, with the plain text of the statute, giving it its natural and ordinary meaning. McClanahan v. Washington Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 445 Md. 691, 701 (2015). We review “the text of the particular provision within the context of the statutory scheme of which it is part.” In re O.P., 470 Md. at 255. When considering the context of the language, we may look to related statutes, earlier and subsequent enactments, and other materials that bear on legislative purpose. Williams v. State, 492 Md. 295, 307 (2025). “Review of the legislative history, as well as prior caselaw concerning the provision or similar provisions, may provide guidance and help confirm conclusions drawn from the text or resolve its ambiguities.” In re T.K., 480 Md. at 145 (citation modified). Where the words of a statute are ambiguous on their face, or where the words are clear and unambiguous when viewed in isolation, but become ambiguous when read as part of a larger statutory scheme, a court must resolve the ambiguity by searching for legislative intent in other indicia, including the history of the legislation or other relevant sources intrinsic and extrinsic to the legislative process. 14 Williams, 492 Md. at 307–08 (citation modified). “In resolving ambiguities, [we] consider[] the structure of the statute, how it relates to other laws, its general purpose, and the relative rationality and legal effect of various competing constructions.” Bennett v. Harford County, 485 Md. 461, 486 (2023) (citations omitted). “In every case, the statute must be given a reasonable interpretation, not one that is absurd, illogical, or incompatible with common sense.” Williams, 492 Md. at 308. Finally, where the General Assembly directs an administrative agency to promulgate regulations to implement a statute, we may give deference to the agency’s interpretation of the statute as carried out by the regulations, particularly where the interpretation has been consistently applied for a long period of time. Comptroller of Md. v. FC-GEN Operations Invs. LLC, 482 Md. 343, 362 (2022); Smith v. Higinbothom, 187 Md. 115, 132-33 (1946) (explaining that “where the language of a statute is susceptible of two constructions, a long-continued and unvarying construction applied by administrative officials is strong persuasive influence in determining the judicial construction of the statute”). D. A Parent’s Action in Delivering a Newborn to a Designated Facility Under the Safe Haven Act May Support a Finding of “Neglect” Under the CINA Statute As we previously noted, “neglect” is defined under the CINA statute as the “failure to give proper care and attention to a child by any parent . . . under circumstances that indicate . . . [t]hat the child’s health or welfare is . . . placed at substantial risk of harm[.]” CJP § 3-801(t)(1)(i). Mother argues that she could not have neglected the Twins, because she left them “unharmed” within 60 days of their birth at a designated facility under the Safe Haven Act. We disagree with Mother’s narrow interpretation of the word “neglect.” 15 Although the act of dropping the Twins off at a designated facility may not have caused them immediate harm, the child’s health or welfare is nonetheless “placed at a substantial risk of harm[,]” because there is no parent or legal guardian who can make decisions on their behalf. Id. It is necessary for the Department to intercede on their behalf for their health and safety. We agree with the Appellate Court’s prior interpretation that “a finding of neglect may be based on a substantial risk of harm to the child if the Department of Social Services “does not take charge of the child.” In re B.Cd., 267 Md. App. at 88 (citing Doe, 205 Md. App. at 60). A “neglect” finding may be based upon the impact the parent’s actions could have on the child if the local department does not take charge of the child. Id.; see also Owens v. Prince George’s County Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 182 Md. App. 31, 54–55 (2008) (affirming a finding of neglect for refusing to permit a child to return to the home); In re Nathaniel A., 160 Md. App. 581, 601 (2005) (finding neglect due to substantial risk of harm that the child would incur if not placed in foster care). The act of abandoning the child at the designated facility places the child at “substantial risk of harm[,]” CJP § 3- 801(t)(1)(i), because without intervention by the local department, there is no one to provide for the child’s basic health or welfare needs. Applied to the uncontested facts of this case, the neglect definition is satisfied. By the time the Twins were ready for discharge from BWMC on September 17, 2024, there was no parent available, no legal custodian, no provision for their ongoing care, and no one legally obligated to feed, shelter, provide medical care for, or make decisions for them in the long-term. These children had been left without permanent provision for their care, placing them at substantial risk of harm. Every element of CJP § 3-801(t)(1) was satisfied. 16 That the Department intervened after the surrender does not alter the analysis. The focus is on whether the parent’s conduct placed the child at substantial risk of harm, not on whether a third party subsequently ameliorated that risk. See Doe, 205 Md. App. at 61. E. The Safe Haven’s Immunity From “Civil Liability” Does Not Prevent a Court From Making a Finding of Neglect in a CINA Proceeding Where the Parent Delivers a Newborn to a Designated Facility In Accordance With the Safe Haven Act. We turn to Mother’s contention that interpreting the definition of “neglect” under the CINA statute to support a finding of neglect under these circumstances is inconsistent with the provision of the Safe Haven Act that provides immunity from civil liability when an individual acts in accordance with the statute. The Safe Haven Act states: A person who leaves an unharmed newborn with a responsible adult or at a designated facility within 60 days after the birth of the newborn, as determined within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and does not express an intent to return for the newborn shall be immune from civil liability or criminal prosecution for the act. CJP § 5-641(b)(1). We start our statutory analysis by noting that the Act does not define the term “civil liability.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines “liability” as “[t]he quality, state, or condition of being legally obligated or accountable; legal responsibility to another or to society, enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment.” Liability, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024). Mother interprets “civil liability” broadly to include a CINA neglect finding because of the potential adverse direct and collateral consequences of such a finding. The Department, on the other hand, takes a narrower approach, by suggesting that immunity from “civil liability” simply precludes legal action against the parent by a person on behalf of the newborn for the “act” of abandonment, which would not be precluded by the doctrine 17 of parent-child immunity. The dictionary definition supports both interpretations. We determine that the Act’s language on immunity from “civil liability” is ambiguous. 1. Legislative History To resolve this ambiguity, we turn to the legislative history. That history, however, reveals no reference to, or information about, the meaning of immunity from “civil liability.” The Floor Report prepared by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee noted that the immunity from criminal prosecution included criminal penalties that arose from crimes for deserting a minor child or by engaging in an act that “willfully renders a child in need of assistance.” Floor Report for House Bill 602, Safe Haven Act, 2002 Leg., 418th Sess. (Md. 2002). The Revised Fiscal Note for Senate Bill 3 contains an extensive discussion on the criminal laws in Maryland “related to desertion of a minor child.” Revised Fiscal Note, Senate Bill 3, 2002 Leg., 416th Sess. (Md. 2002). Although the Floor Report for House Bill 602 and the Revised Fiscal Note for Senate Bill 3 contain an extensive discussion on the criminal laws in Maryland “related to desertion of a minor child,” there is no discussion concerning what the General Assembly intended insofar as immunity from “civil liability.” Notwithstanding the lack of legislative history on the meaning of “civil liability,” the legislative history reflects that an alternative to the CINA process was considered and rejected. As introduced, Senate Bill 3, the “Maryland Safe Haven Act,” proposed making a parent’s voluntary surrender of an unharmed newborn under the statute constitute the “relinquishment” of parental rights. S.B. 3. (2001) at 1. The bill also proposed to create a new subtitle in the Family Law Article that would have required the local departments to “[t]ake control and custody of the relinquished newborn within 24 hours” and “file a 18 petition to terminate the parental rights of the relinquished newborn in accordance with [former] § 5-313” of the Family Law Article, repealed by 2005 Md. Laws, ch. 464 (S.B. 710) § 2, and to vest judicial authority over the child with the guardianship court. S.B. 3 at 2-3. The bill would have barred the guardianship court from returning the child to a parent’s custody absent a specific finding that the return would not present “an unacceptable risk to the future and safety of the child.” Id. at 3. While the Senate was considering Senate Bill 3, the House considered a different bill, H.B. 602—titled “Maryland Safe Haven Act of 2002”—with a more limited scope. H.B. 602 (2002). Instead of creating a new process for custody and guardianship proceedings for a newborn, the House Bill did not modify the existing CINA subtitle and limited its impact to providing immunity from certain potential criminal sanctions. Id. at 2. After both chambers passed their respective bills, the General Assembly appointed a conference committee to reconcile them. On April 2, 2002, J. Theodore Wieseman, Counsel for the Office of the Public Defender, wrote a letter to Walter H. Baker, in which he advocated for the Senate to adopt the House Bill. Letter from J. Theodore Wieseman, Couns., Off. of the Pub. Def., to Walter H. Baker, Senator, Md. State Senate (Apr. 2, 2002). The letter explained that the “House Bill does not cha