WICOMICO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. B.A.
Court of Appeals, McDonald, July 12, 2016,
Sexual Abuse (Civil)- FL 5-701 – Sexual abuse by one with temporary responsibility for a child must involve sexually exploitative conduct (or act specifically to facilitate same) during the period of responsibility.

(Dissent – Adkins – civil statute should be considered ambiguous, and therefore expanded in light of legislative intent)
(Dissent – Watts joined by Harrell, anything done during period of responsibility that assists in grooming for sexual exploitation should qualify regardless of demonstrated intent)

CR 3-602(a)(4) defines “Sexual abuse” as “an act that involves sexual molestation or exploitation of a minor, whether physical injuries are sustained or not” and criminalizes such abuse by “A parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for the supervision of a minor” as well as by “A household member or family member”
FL 5-701(x)(1) defines “Sexual abuse” as “any act that involves sexual molestation or exploitation of a child by a parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a child, or by any household or family member.”

So the two are more than passingly similar. As the Court notes, “the civil and criminal provisions originated as parts of the same statute with the same set of definitions.”

And therefore the Court’s interpretation of FL 5-701 bears some weight with regard to conduct under CR 3-601 et seq.

FL 5-701 – “temporary care or custody” is “equivalent to in loco parentis” that arises “only when one is willing to assume all the obligations and to receive all the benefits associated with one standing as a natural parent to a child.”

FL 5-701 – “responsibility for the supervision of a minor” is broader and “may be obtained only upon the mutual consent, expressed or implied, by the one legally charged with the care of the child and by the one assuming the responsibility.” It ends when the parent/guardian resumes responsibility.

A martial arts instructor asking a minor student to pose for erotic pictures and engaging in other “grooming” behavior was “sexually exploitative”

A martial arts instructor may be considered to have “temporary responsibility” for supervision of a minor during the time that the minor is in class. But that responsibility ended when the minor was returned to her parents, and therefore conduct that occurred after the child was returned did not occur while the minor was the instructor’s “responsibility.”