Internal prototype — noindexed, not linked from public navigation yet.

Md. Code, Family Law § 9.5-310

This is the official text of Md. Code, Family Law § 9.5-310, part of Maryland’s Code, Family Law — governs marriage, divorce, child custody and support, and adoption.

Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.

§9.

Official statutory text

§9.5–310.

(a) Unless the court issues a temporary emergency order in accordance with § 9.5-204 of this title, on a finding that a petitioner is entitled to immediate physical custody of the child, the court shall order that the petitioner may take immediate physical custody of the child unless the respondent establishes that:

(1) the child custody determination has not been registered and confirmed under § 9.5-305 of this subtitle and that:

(i) the issuing court did not have jurisdiction under Subtitle 2 of this title;

(ii) the child custody determination for which enforcement is sought has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court of a state having jurisdiction to do so under Subtitle 2 of this title; or

(iii) the respondent was entitled to notice, but notice was not given in accordance with the standards of § 9.5-107 of this title, in the proceedings before the court that issued the order for which enforcement is sought; or

(2) the child custody determination for which enforcement is sought was registered and confirmed under § 9.5-305 of this subtitle but has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court of a state having jurisdiction to do so under Subtitle 2 of this title.

(b) The court shall award the fees, costs, and expenses authorized under § 9.5-312 of this subtitle and may grant additional relief, including a request for the assistance of law enforcement officials, and set a further hearing to determine whether additional relief is appropriate.

(c) If a party called to testify refuses to answer on the ground that the testimony may be self-incriminating, the court may draw an adverse inference from the refusal.

(d) A privilege against disclosure of communications between spouses and a defense of immunity based on the relationship of husband and wife or parent and child may not be invoked in a proceeding under this subtitle.

Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site

About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the Open US Law dataset (Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine (Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.