Maryland Law Prohibits Grandmothers From Giving Bunk Beds to Foster Kids
"Where is she going to put the grandkids if she doesn't create a bunkbed situation?"

Maryland families who want to take in foster kids face an odd hurdle: State law prohibits foster children from using bunk beds.
The fine print of the Maryland's foster care regulations says: "Each child shall have an individual bed that may not be stacked in vertical bunk bed formation."
In practice, this means that if you don't have a lot of extra space or money, you may be disqualified from foster parenting—even if you're a relative who knows and loves the kids and desperately wants to keep the family together.
Ana Beltran, Director of the Grandfamilies & Kinship Support Network, a nonprofit that focuses on intergenerational issues, says the law makes things tough for extended families trying to lend a hand. She gave the example of a grandmother who wants to have the grandchildren come live with her, rather than having them sent to foster care.
"Maybe she's in affordable housing, in a studio apartment," says Beltran. "Where is she going to put the grandkids if she doesn't create a bunkbed situation?"
The rule, one hopes, was created to make sure kids have a safe place to sleep. But other states approve of bunk beds. After all, the beds themselves are not the big picture.
"The ultimate objective is to keep these families together," says Beltran.
Naturally, you don't want a foster family's biological kid luxuriating in a Barbie bedroom while the foster kids are crammed into a closet. But other than that, the goal should be to find a great home, not a great bedroom set.
Maryland should be particularly aware of the downside of ruling out homes, considering a new report that found the state temporarily housing some kids in office buildings and hotels while an appropriate placement was sought.
Beltran tried to find out if Maryland's rule was passed in the wake of a bunk bed tragedy, but came up empty. Usually, that's what precedes idiosyncratic laws. Beltran recalled another law saying foster families could not have one specific breed of dog after that breed had bitten a child. But the bunk bed provision remained a mystery.
Ruth White, Executive Director of the National Center for Housing & Child Welfare, asked some current and former foster care youth if they had any idea where the policy might come from. They thought it made sense in only one kind of case: When a foster family effectively starts running a group home without calling it that. White heard of one foster family with enough bunk beds for 10 kids.
In other cases, when it really is just a family trying to fit a kid or kids into their home, the authorities may ignore the bunk bed mandate, according to White. That kind of flexibility is smart and humane, but if a law requires ignoring, shouldn't it just be eliminated?
"Doing anything by legislation takes longer than just encouraging people not to enforce it," White says.
Sonya Begay, a grandmother in Maryland, is grateful for the crumbs of common sense tossed her way. She was living in Kentucky when her three grandchildren—two girls and a boy, all under 10—needed a foster home.
"At the time, I was living in a small place by myself," she says. While child protective services allowed her to take the kids in, the authorities also wanted her to get a larger place—and they gave her just two weeks to do so. She immediately went looking for a two-bedroom home, and bunkbeds.
But that was a problem.
"They said, 'You can't put them in bunks,'" says Begay. The grandmother told them that finding a new place to live, moving all her belongings, and buying three new beds within two weeks was asking too much, and the state relented. They said she could have bunk beds.
Miraculously, Begay managed to jump through the hoops, all "with no help from the state."
"I had to dig into my retirement," she says.
But she got the kids. She even managed to cram three beds into one of the bedrooms to make sure no one could complain about a bunk bed situation. Because when you know the government is evaluating your child-raising decisions, it's awfully hard to sleep easy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
As we all know from movies such as Step Brothers, bunk beds have a bad habit of collapsing, trapping the occupant of the lower bunk beneath the upper bunk. While such a scene may provoke laughter, there's nothing funny about being a victim of Collapsing Bunkbed Syndrome.
My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 30 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless.
This is what I do.........>>> OnlineCareer1
Can you cite a real world (not a movie) case of "Collapsing Bunkbed Syndrome"?
When I was in the Air Force, a bunk bed collapsed in the barracks. The guy on the bottom got a few hours off work while his injuries were treated, but it was nothing serious. Note that these were not children, but LARGE adults - the guy in the top bunk and the guy in the bottom were the biggest two men on the squadron football team. There was a lot of weight on that bed to cause the collapse, and a lot of weight coming down on the bottom guy. I don't think it says anything about the results to be expected when a defective bunk is occupied by children.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month (ams-08) simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
What we really need is a 50 state ban on democrats.
A bunk bed collapsed at a hotel with my daughter in it. But it was a fold away system. Not the best example.
My own daughter was in a top bunk for years.
YMMV
I'd love to know the reason behind the law. Was there an actual pattern of issues with cheap bunk beds, or was it the product of paranoia?
My vote would be for Officious Twittery, which shows up a lot in laws that are supposed to ensure our welfare.
That’s not a bad stage name.
So the Army is trying to kill recruits in their sleep? Izzis an argument for coercing Grandma or ending conscription?
Obviously, the Single Bed lobby in cahoots with nanny state Democrats wrote this rule.
I remember when we were certified. I had printed out my exit instructions on how to leave the house in case of fire or tornado. I tped them up as described. The house was totally prepped. The state agent never even left the kitchen and looked at any of it.
WTF. Bunk beds are awesome!
Even when my son got his own room, he kept his bunk bed so the dog could sleep in the bottom bunk.
Odds the law exists because a kid got hurt and the foster system got sued.
I was also wondering if this isn't a misconceptualization of the law as well. I only skimmed the actual text, but the law itself only says 'shall', not 'must', and the headings above it are all 'standards' and 'inspection', not 'requirement'. Seems unlikely that the foster care system would 'relent' if a foster parent weren't "Following all federal and State laws pertaining to registration, permits, and maintenance of firearms" (which is denoted as a requirement).
Seems pretty equally likely that someone fell off a bunk and CDFS got sued as some child got abused and somebody just went around with a clipboard making a list of vague signs of potential abuse.
In legal code, “shall” essentially means “must” (at least in Ohio it does). Permissive legal language would use “may”.
For instance, if a parent is found in contempt for parenting time interference, the court "shall" assess court costs and attorney fees to the guilty party (I just won such a case against my ex and had to remind the court to get my money back). However, the same law says the court "may" grant compensatory parenting time (so if your time is stolen, the court doesn't have to give it back).
LOL! Exact verbiage:
"Each child shall have an individual bed that may not be stacked in vertical bunk bed formation."
This is basically it. These are other peoples' children that the state has in its custody. That means that if something happens, someone or some department or whatever is going to get sued down to the studs. So, that being the case, should they tend toward laxity or caution? Easy, rational decision to make--ideology not necessary.
This is not complicated, nor is it a mystery, not one that we need Lenore Skenazy or any other libertarian to figure out.
It's a liability issue. It's a liability issue. It's a liability issue. It's a liability issue...It's not the state keeping you down, guys.
Should those rules apply when giving custody to other relatives such as an aunt/uncle or grandparents rather than general unrelated foster parents?
That's the main issue here, the rule potentially preventing keeping the child with family.
It would seem that way, and I get what you're saying. They're just always going to operate on an excess of caution.
From a liability perspective, yes. It must be remembered that the state is not giving custody to the relative. They are putting them into a placement. The relative is their caretaker. But until the birth parent either regains custody or that custody is ultimately terminated (at the end of a very long process that is heavily weighted toward returning the child to the birth parents) the state has custody. Something happens to a kid in a foster home or kinship placement, the state is on the hook. And, as I said in another comment, variances are granted all of the time, especially if granting one gets the kid into a kinship placement so the state doesn't burn up a foster home.
Rule of thumb in child welfare: There's no shortage of kids coming into the system but there is always, ALWAYS, a paucity of foster parents. So, all the problems--shitty foster parents, abusive FPs, FPs only in it for the money, etc.--all starts there.
If you can foster, sign up! Or donate some suitcases to your local foster care agency. All that stuff Tiffany Haddish says about foster kids moving their possessions around in garbage bags when they have to move placements? 100% true.
There ya go! Just like there was no racial collectivism in Germany: The Reich was simply holding Jews liable for flogging the Baby Jesus!
Then we need to apply Shakespeare's solution I guess.
I agree with you, and I agree with the law, it says the beds can’t be stacked. So have both beds independent of each other. Either have a Pullman bed where it comes from the ceiling, or a tall bed that has its own supports.
I have seen kids seriously harmed by beds falling on top of the kid, should be able to create 2 safe beds even if they are above each other.
Cruise cabins has shown you can put 2 twin beds in as little as 300 sqft of a space. So not sure why you would need bunk beds. Kids really don’t need a huge space for 2 kids.
This is prob exactly why. I used to work in this field, assessing potential foster families and their homes for placements. It's important to keep in mind that the child is not in the custody of the foster parent but in the custody of the state. So, if there is an accident and God forbid a death, well, you know what happens next. Also, there are almost always variances issued for chickenshit stuff like this. The main goal is always, always getting the kids into placement, especially with existing family so the foster parent roster does not need to be tapped. Boys are the hardest to place. I bet if the caseworker filed a variance request in this instance, they'd get it approved. Child welfare is super screwed up, but everyone who write about it, Libertarian and Progressive alike, never know what tf they're talking about.
The obvious solution is to blame Trump.
One nationalsocialist is pretty much like any other, right?
I don’t know Hank. Is one infanticidal Antichrist hippie bigot pretty much like any other?
And Big Bunk Bed Manufacturers.
'You can't put them in bunks,'
Then how are all my orphans supposed to sleep at the bottom of the salt mine? Surely, you don't expect me to leave the mine unworked and/or vacant all night long? I guess I could have them dig out a more proper bedroom suite...
“Salt mines? They were lucky to have salt mines!”
You have them sleep on piles of old rags in the side shafts that aren't being actively worked.
Don't tell me you waste money on actual cots for them? They're already getting fed.
Or just rotate their shifts and let them share a cot, like in the navy.
Cuz nothing says love like a bunch of mattresses on the floor. Or maybe a pit in the basement.
I don't think you've considered the full ramifications of your statement in the modern era.
If bunk beds are good enough for the navy and army, their good enough for granny.
Stack 'em three high - don't sit up too fast on the top bunk or you'll hit your head on the fire main.
I liked the top bunk the best, no one dangling their legs over the side, no one stepping on your mattress to climb up.
bunk bed? fixed, extended day-bed.
Relatives can do whatever they want.
The kids aren't in foster care if they go to stay with relatives--particularly grandparents.
Unless those relatives want state money.
You want the danegeld, you gotta deal with the dane.
This is not entirely true, and there is much, much more to it w/r/t Kinship Placements (this is what family placements are called in the Biz). As with all things Child Welfare, I encourage people to look into these things in the appropriate places. Most people have strong opinions about child welfare but rarely know what they're talking about.
It varies by state.
As someone certified to be a foster parent in multiple states, I am aware of this.
I am also aware that relatives are not subjected to the whims of CPS unless they take CPS money.
I don't know how it could apply otherwise in any state. CPS is taken out of the equation.
Give them loft style beds with useful space instead of a bed underneath. I had that arrangement in my college dorm, desk under bed. Allegedly it violated a university policy requiring people in bed to be visible from the door. At the time that policy, if it existed, was not enforced.
Wow, whatever department in that university wrote that policy had waaay too much time on its hands. What next, cellophane bedclothes?
My elevated beds did not have a safety rail like the stock photo used to illustrate the article. The illustration does not meet typical building code for a barrier to prevent kids from falling. You can't have a gap of more than three inches (used to be four) between solid parts otherwise some microcephalic head might get stuck.
My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 30 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless.
This is what I do.........>>> OnlineCareer1
I was 9 the first time I slept in a bunkbed. Woke up in the middle of the night in agony and realized I had rolled out and fell 7 or 8 feet, face-first onto my buddy's hardwood floor. Never a big fan of them after that. Naturally, at Army BCT years later I ended up in the top rack and the same thing happened, only this time on nice, soft tile! Sometimes the brass get it right...
I wouldn't get a bunkbed for my kids, but I wouldn't ban them either...toughens 'em up!
Well, the bed in the picture looks like it would be difficult for someone to fall out of, but that probably is not the particular bed in question.
I took the bottom bunk at prep school. A battery & bulb wired to nails under the upper bunk provided enough light to fleece the other kids at all-night poker games.
Why don't we just outlaw them for everyone and then we don't have to argue over the minutiae?
a grandmother who wants to have the grandchildren come live with her, rather than having them sent to foster care.
Since this would be instead of (and therefore not) foster care, why should regulations dealing with foster care apply? Is it that the grandmother wants state subsidies that go to "foster" parents? I think bunk beds are fine (and kind of neat), but I guess if you want people's money, you have to play by their rules. (Perhaps that shouldn't apply when the "people" are a government agency and the rules don't make sense, but it very often does.)
Thank you for sharing! I hope for some changes to help those families that can't afford lots of room but still want to help though...
Mom: Oooo, what a kewl bunkbed!
Grandma: The kids get to sleep over.
Kids: YAY!
Looters: Look Robin, the Crime Squad signal! Git 'em!
BLAMBLAMBLAM! (sirens...)
FACT: State law prohibits foster children from using bunk beds!
Prisoners wil now lobby for these rules.
I've heard so many crazy rules for foster parents. I've not had much trouble with rules personally tho. I even had a kid who didn't want any bed at all. She wanted a hammock instead. State worker was fine with it so we got rid of her bed.
Have you hear the one about the Social Worker and the Hindu kid who wanted to sleep on a bed of nails?
If you live in California and want to help stop government abuses like those discussed in this article, please join the Libertarian Party of California at LPC.org, and register and vote Libertarian. Together we can end the 2-party duopoly cartel that perpetrates and enables such rights violations.