Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 22
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4031 (2026)

Jurisdiction; venue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Jurisdiction.  The following provisions govern jurisdiction.  
A. The District Court has jurisdiction over child protection proceedings and jurisdiction over petitions for adoption from permanency guardianship filed by the department.   [PL 2011, c. 402, §3 (AMD).]
B. The Probate Court and the Superior Court have concurrent jurisdiction to act on requests for preliminary child protection orders under section 4034. As soon as the action is taken by the Probate Court or the Superior Court, the matter must be transferred to the District Court.   [PL 2011, c. 402, §3 (AMD).]
C. [PL 1989, c. 270, §12 (RP).]
D. The District Court has jurisdiction over judicial reviews transferred to the District Court pursuant to Title 18‑C, section 9‑205.   [PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. C, §62 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 417, Pt. B, §14 (AFF).]
[PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. C, §62 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 417, Pt. B, §14 (AFF).]
2.  Venue.   
A. Petitions must be brought in the district where the child legally resides or where the child is present. When a child is in voluntary placement with the department or an agency, the petition may be brought only in the district where the child legally resides.   [RR 2021, c. 2, Pt. B, §188 (COR).]
B. The court, for the convenience of the parties or in the interests of justice, may transfer the petitions to another district or division.   [PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW).]
C. A judge from another district, division or county may hear a petition and make a preliminary or final protection order if no judge is available in the district and division in which the petition is filed.   [PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW).]
[RR 2021, c. 2, Pt. B, §188 (COR).]
3.  Scope of authority.  The court shall consider and act on child protection petitions regardless of other decrees regarding a child's care and custody. The requirements and provisions of Title 19‑A, chapter 58 do not apply to child protection proceedings. If custody or parentage is an issue in another pending proceeding, the proceedings may be consolidated in the District Court with respect to the issue of custody, parentage or both. In any event, the court shall make an order on the child protection petition in accordance with this chapter. That order takes precedence over any other order regarding the child's care and custody. Nothing in this subsection may be construed to limit the authority of the District Court to determine parentage pursuant to section 4005‑F during the pendency of a child protection proceeding; to consolidate a child protection proceeding with another matter; or to resolve a child protection proceeding through the entry of a parental rights and responsibilities order, guardianship order or adoption order.  
[PL 2023, c. 63, §3 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW). PL 1985, c. 547 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 270, §§11,12 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 548, §A19 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 686, §9 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 686, §13 (AFF). PL 1995, c. 694, §§D40,41 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF). RR 1999, c. 1, §29 (COR). PL 2011, c. 402, §3 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 296, Pt. C, §28 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 296, Pt. D, §1 (AFF). PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. C, §62 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. F, §1 (AFF). PL 2019, c. 417, Pt. B, §14 (AFF). RR 2021, c. 2, Pt. B, §188 (COR). PL 2023, c. 63, §3 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “” 22 M.R.S. § 4031(1)(A), (3) (2009). That jurisdictional grant controls here unless the PKPA bars Maine courts from exercising jurisdiction in this case.”
In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152 (Me. 2019). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4031(1)(A) (2018) (“The District Court has jurisdiction over child protection proceedings .”
In re Child. of Bethmarie R., 2018 ME 96 (Me. 2018). “§ 152(5-A) ); 22 M.R.S. § 4031 (2017) (giving the District Court exclusive jurisdiction over child protection proceedings, except that the Probate Court and Superior Court have concurrent jurisdiction to act on requests for preliminary child protection orders pursuant to 22 M.”
In re Emma B., 2017 ME 187 (Me. 2017). “[¶ 15] None of the determinations that a court is called upon to make in a jeopardy proceeding requires the court to have personal jurisdiction over a parent. As a matter of venue, a child protection petition must be filed- in the court located in the judicial district where the…”
Adoption of Michaela C., 863 A.2d 270 (Me. 2004). “22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(1)(A) (2004). Once the District Court enters a jeopardy order, it is required to review the case every six months until the child has been emancipated or adopted.”
Brown v. Ives, 129 F.3d 209 (1st Cir. 1997). “See 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4031, 4036. In support of the order Niemi filed an affidavit, in which she described Warren Brown’s alleged negligent supervision of Me’chelle Brown.”
In re Robin T., 651 A.2d 337 (Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “The controlling statute, 22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(3) (1992) 2 refutes his contention, and we have held that it “clearly directs that a court presented with a child protection petition need not follow existing orders that affect the child’s care and custody.”
Pat Doe v. Mark Forino, 2020 ME 135 (Me. 2020). “” See 22 M.R.S. § 4031(3) (2020); In re Robin T.”
In Re David W., 568 A.2d 513 (Me. 1990). “Mere presence of the child is a sufficient basis for venue under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(2)(A), which provides that a child protection petition may be filed “in the district where the child legally resides or where the child is present.”
In re L.T., 2015 ME 94 (Me. 2015). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4031 (2014) (stating that the District Court has jurisdiction over child protection proceedings); In re A.”
In Re Thomas B., 1998 ME 236 (Me. 1998). “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(3) (Supp.1997). Accordingly, even if we were to dismiss the appeal, the child protection order would nonetheless remain valid.”
In re Child of Stephen E., 2018 ME 71 (Me. 2018). “CASE HISTORY [¶2] In July 2016, the mother of the child relocated from New York to Maine, bringing the child with her.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4031(1)(A) — 5 cases
In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010). “” 22 M.R.S. § 4031(1)(A), (3) (2009). That jurisdictional grant controls here unless the PKPA bars Maine courts from exercising jurisdiction in this case.”
In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152 (Me. 2019). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4031(1)(A) (2018) (“The District Court has jurisdiction over child protection proceedings .”
Adoption of Michaela C., 863 A.2d 270 (Me. 2004). “22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(1)(A) (2004). Once the District Court enters a jeopardy order, it is required to review the case every six months until the child has been emancipated or adopted.”
Bryan C v. Lambrew (D. Me. 2021).
Guardianship by Stacey M., 2022 ME 1 (Me. 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4031(2)(A) — 2 cases
In re Emma B., 2017 ME 187 (Me. 2017). “[¶ 15] None of the determinations that a court is called upon to make in a jeopardy proceeding requires the court to have personal jurisdiction over a parent. As a matter of venue, a child protection petition must be filed- in the court located in the judicial district where the…”
In Re David W., 568 A.2d 513 (Me. 1990). “Mere presence of the child is a sufficient basis for venue under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(2)(A), which provides that a child protection petition may be filed “in the district where the child legally resides or where the child is present.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4031(3) — 6 cases
In re Robin T., 651 A.2d 337 (Me. 1994). “The controlling statute, 22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(3) (1992) 2 refutes his contention, and we have held that it “clearly directs that a court presented with a child protection petition need not follow existing orders that affect the child’s care and custody.”
Pat Doe v. Mark Forino, 2020 ME 135 (Me. 2020). “” See 22 M.R.S. § 4031(3) (2020); In re Robin T.”
In Re Thomas B., 1998 ME 236 (Me. 1998). “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4031(3) (Supp.1997). Accordingly, even if we were to dismiss the appeal, the child protection order would nonetheless remain valid.”
In re Child of Stephen E., 2018 ME 71 (Me. 2018). “CASE HISTORY [¶2] In July 2016, the mother of the child relocated from New York to Maine, bringing the child with her.”
In re Stephen E., 186 A.3d 134 (Me. 2018).
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.