Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4014 (2026)

Immunity from liability

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Reporting and proceedings. A person, including an agent of the department, participating in good faith in reporting under this subchapter or participating in a related child protection investigation or proceeding, including, but not limited to, a multidisciplinary team, out-of-home abuse investigating team or other investigating or treatment team, or a related law enforcement investigation or criminal justice proceeding is immune from any criminal or civil liability for the act of reporting or participating in the investigation or proceeding. Good faith does not include instances when a false report is made and the person knows the report is false. This section may not be construed to bar criminal or civil action regarding perjury or regarding the abuse or neglect that led to a report, investigation or proceeding.

[PL 2023, c. 146, §2 (AMD).]

2. Photographs and x rays. A person participating in good faith in taking photographs or x rays under this subchapter is immune from civil liability for invasion of privacy that might otherwise result from these actions.

[PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW).]

3. Presumption of good faith. In a proceeding regarding immunity from liability, there shall be a rebuttable presumption of good faith.

[PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 783, §5 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 395, §A89 (AMD). PL 2023, c. 146, §2 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: Seider v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206 (Me. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Seider v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “She argues, for instance, that the Board lacked the authority to discipline her for the contents of her 51-page explanation because 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4014 20 and *563 4021 21 — read in tandem with §§ 4011 22 and 4012(2)(H) (see swpra note 19) — immunize her from liability for the…”

Gray v. State, 624 A.2d 479 (Me. 1993). “In addition, pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4014(1) (1992), child protection workers are specifically entitled to immunity for their good faith investigatory actions.”

Flanders v. Cooper, 1998 ME 28 (Me. 1998). “” 22 M.R.S.A § 4014(1) (1992). Negligent reporting is not actionable.”

Jamison v. Brooks (Me. Super. Ct 2005). · cites it 6× “The first is 22 M.R.S.A. § 4014, w h c h proves in pertinent part that [a] person .”

Klein v. Demers-Klein (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 2× “" See 22 M.R.S. § 4014(1). 3 For these reasons, the court concludes that Demers's statements to Myers, and both Defendants' disclosures to FCS and the OCFS and their testimony in District Court alleged in Counts 4 and 5 of Klein's complaint are all "petitioning activity.”

Malenko v. Campbell (Me. Super. Ct 2010). · cites it 3× “Maine provides statutory immunity from civil or criminal liability arising out of a good-faith report of child abuse. 22 M.RS. S 4014(1) (2009).”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4014(1) — 4 cases

Seider v. Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206 (Me. 2000). “She argues, for instance, that the Board lacked the authority to discipline her for the contents of her 51-page explanation because 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4014 20 and *563 4021 21 — read in tandem with §§ 4011 22 and 4012(2)(H) (see swpra note 19) — immunize her from liability for the…”

Gray v. State, 624 A.2d 479 (Me. 1993). “In addition, pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4014(1) (1992), child protection workers are specifically entitled to immunity for their good faith investigatory actions.”

Flanders v. Cooper, 1998 ME 28 (Me. 1998). “” 22 M.R.S.A § 4014(1) (1992). Negligent reporting is not actionable.”

Klein v. Demers-Klein (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “" See 22 M.R.S. § 4014(1). 3 For these reasons, the court concludes that Demers's statements to Myers, and both Defendants' disclosures to FCS and the OCFS and their testimony in District Court alleged in Counts 4 and 5 of Klein's complaint are all "petitioning activity.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.