HARRY HUGHES, Governor

5167

President of the Senate

State House

Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Dear Mr. President:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed Senate Bill 905.

I have been advised by the Department of Human
Resources that the privilege established by this legislation
between licensed social workers and their clients will
result, inadvertently but unavoidably, in the loss of vital
evidence necessary to protect the interest of children in
various juvenile, guardianship and adoption proceedings.

Members of the judiciary, state's attorneys and many
organizations which advocate the rights of children have
also expressed the view that the creation of this privileged
communication will create substantial problems.

This legislation provides that a client receiving
counseling from a licensed social worker has a privilege to
refuse to disclose, and to prevent a witness from
disclosing, communications by the client made while
receiving such counseling. A licensed certified social
worker is defined as "any person licensed as a certified
social worker under Title 18 of the Health Occupations
Article."

Title 18 requires that an individual obtain a license
before practicing social work in Maryland. There is an
exception to this requirement for public employees.
However, public employees may choose to apply for a license,
and many public social workers in local departments of
social services do in fact choose to become licensed.
Therefore this bill will apply to many public social workers
who provide protective services to both children and adults.

Thus, if Senate Bill 905 were to be signed into law, it
would mean that in many court proceedings involving abuse,
neglect, guardianship and adoption, licensed social workers
in local departments of social services could be prevented
from testifying to pertinent, often determinative evidence.
Statements made to such social workers by parents whose
children have been abused or neglected or statements made by
the children themselves could be suppressed by the parent,
resulting in the loss of important evidence and ultimately
the inability of the State to protect the child from further
harm or mistreatment. This could particularly occur in
Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) proceedings when an order
of protective supervision or out-of-home placement is
requested, or upon review of placement or custody orders.
Although it is not possible to know exactly how many