1924                                      Vetoes

Memo to the Family Court Committee of the Supreme Bench in which
he had the following comments. I am forwarding them to you for your
consideration, because I agree with them in most part:

"(i) H. B. 906 makes no provision for preliminary hearings by
the State's Attorney with authority to issue summonses and conduct
examinations. It is under this authority vested in the State's Attorney
and delegated to our Analysts that most of our paternity and non-
support cases are disposed of without formal court hearings. There is
nothing in HB 906 which would seem to provide any means by which
non-support cases could be decided other than hearings in open court
before a Judge or Master. (Section 66D).

" (ii) The paternity statute spells out a number of specific direc-
tions regarding pleading, practice and process, and authorizes the use
of a simple standard petition form. Also, recognizing that in cases of
this type it is frequently necessary to obtain a warrant to get the re-
spondent into court for a hearing, the paternity law provides an arrest
procedure and for a detained person's release on bond. None of these
procedural aspects of "Family Law" are included in HB 906. (Section
66E).

LAG comment: Equity does have the procedure of writ ne exeat
regno to get a man under bond but it is cumber-
some.

"(iii) The paternity law provides a right to jury trial which is
not included in Bill 906. (Section 66F).

"(iv) The paternity law carries specific provisions regarding
notification of address change, a continuing obligation to make pay-
ments due for child support after the child becomes of age, and the
Court's authority to require the posting of a bond to guarantee pay-
ments. None of these provisions are included in H. B. 906. (Section
66J).

" (v) The paternity law contemplates voluntary support agree-
ments approved by the Court but no such special provision is included
in H.B. 906. (Section 66L).

"(vi) The paternity act requires Court Clerks to maintain
special dockets for such cases and directs that, in Baltimore City, they
be filed with the Clerk of Circuit Court No. 2. H.B. 906 contains no
such provision though in the Criminal Court non-support cases have
always been recorded in a special docket. (Section 66M)."

To sum up, the Bill seems to have been hastily drawn and passed
without sufficient reflection upon some of the problems involved and
interests to be secured. There needs to be some re-thinking in the
whole area of domestic relations law in Maryland, but I do not feel that
piecemeal and incomplete legislation is the answer.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ (Miss) Lucy Ann Garvey
702 Court House Annex

House Bill No. 916—Scenic Rivers Program

AN ACT to add new Sections 763 and 764 to Article 66C of the
Annotated Code of Maryland (1970 Replacement Volume), title