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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4034 (2026)

Request for a preliminary protection order

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Request.  A petitioner may add to a child protection petition a request for a preliminary protection order or may request a preliminary protection order separately from the child protection petition. A request for a preliminary protection order must include a sworn summary of facts to support the request and identify the specific services offered and provided under section 4036‑B, subsection 3 to prevent the removal of the child from the home.  
[PL 2015, c. 501, §9 (AMD).]
2.  Order.  If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence presented in the sworn summary or otherwise that there is an immediate risk of serious harm to the child, it may order any disposition under section 4036. A preliminary protection order automatically expires at the time of the issuing of a final protection order under section 4035 or a judicial review order under section 4038.  
[PL 2001, c. 696, §25 (AMD).]
3.  Custodial consent.  If the custodian consents in writing and the consent is voluntarily and knowingly executed in court before a judge, or the custodian does not appear after proper notice has been given, then the hearing on the preliminary protection order need not be held, except as provided in subsection 4.  
[PL 1983, c. 184, §3 (AMD).]
4.  Summary preliminary hearing.  The court shall schedule a summary preliminary hearing on a preliminary protection order within 14 days but not less than 7 days after issuance of the preliminary protection order, except that counsel for a parent may request that the hearing take place sooner. Upon request of counsel, the court may conduct the summary preliminary hearing as expeditiously as the court determines the interests of justice require. If a parent, custodian or legal guardian appears for the summary preliminary hearing and does not consent to the preliminary protection order, the court shall conduct a hearing at which the petitioner bears the burden of proof. At a summary preliminary hearing, the court may limit testimony to the testimony of the caseworker, parent, custodian, legal guardian, guardian ad litem, foster parent, preadoptive parent or relative providing care and may admit evidence, including reports and records, that would otherwise be inadmissable as hearsay evidence. If after the hearing the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that returning the child to the child's custodian would place the child in immediate risk of serious harm, it shall continue the order or make another disposition under section 4036. If the court's preliminary protection order includes a finding of an aggravating factor, the court may order the department not to commence reunification or to cease reunification, in which case the court shall conduct a hearing on jeopardy and conduct a permanency planning hearing. The hearings must commence within 30 days of entry of the preliminary protection order.  
If the petitioner has not been able to serve a parent, custodian or legal guardian before the scheduled summary preliminary hearing, the parent, custodian or legal guardian may request a subsequent summary preliminary hearing within 10 days after receipt of the petition.  
[PL 2015, c. 501, §10 (AMD).]
5.  Contents of order.  The preliminary protection order must include a notice to the parents and custodians of their right to counsel, as required under section 4032, subsection 2, paragraph G and, if the order was made without consent, notice of the date and time of the summary preliminary hearing. The order must include a notice to the parent or custodian that if a parent or custodian is not served with the petition before the summary preliminary hearing, the parent or custodian is entitled to request a subsequent preliminary hearing within 10 days after receipt of the petition. The order must include a notice that visitation must be scheduled within 7 days of the issuance of the order unless there is a compelling reason not to schedule visitation.  
[PL 2001, c. 696, §27 (AMD).]
6.  Visitation.  When the court issues a preliminary protection order, the court shall order the department to schedule visitation with the child's parents and siblings within 7 days of the issuance of the order, unless there is a compelling reason not to schedule such visitation.  
[PL 2001, c. 696, §28 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 184, §§3,4 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 715, §§A4,5 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 696, §§25-28 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 501, §§9, 10 (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 82 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: In Re Heather C., 2000 ME 99 (Me. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Heather C., 2000 ME 99 (Me. 2000). · cites it 6× “If, after hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence “that there is an immediate risk of serious harm to the child,” 22 M.R.S.A. § 4034(2), it may continue the preliminary protection order and may order that the Department or another person take custody of the…”
In Re Kristy Y., 2000 ME 98 (Me. 2000). · cites it 5× “By operation of section 4006, orders issued pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4034 are interlocutory orders and, therefore, not subject to appeal.”
In Re Erica B., 520 A.2d 342 (Me. 1987). · cites it 4× “argues that the Superior Court erred in dismissing her appeal because the preliminary hearing held under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4034 is a proceeding separate and distinguishable from the final protection hearing under 22 M.”
In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(1) (2018). The court (Duddy, J.”
In re Tiyonie R., 203 A.3d 824 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034 (2018). The mother waived her right to a summary preliminary hearing, see 22 M.”
In re Emma B., 2017 ME 187 (Me. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 4032 (2016), and obtained a preliminary child protection order, see 22 M.R.S. §§ 4034, 4036 (2016). The child was immediately placed with a foster family, but after both that and a second foster placement were unable to meet the child’s needs, she was psychiatrically…”
In Re David W., 568 A.2d 513 (Me. 1990). · cites it 3× “(construing 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4034, 4035). The fact that a further hearing must be held prior to the court’s issuance of a final protection order, 22 M.”
In re Child. of Mary J., 2019 ME 2 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034 (2017). The mother waived her right to a summary preliminary hearing except as to the issue of placement.”
In re Child of Dawn B., 2019 ME 93 (Me. 2019). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034 (2018). The mother and father waived their right to a summary preliminary hearing.”
In re Cameron Z., 2016 ME 162 (Me. 2016). “Title 22 M.R.S. § 4034(1) has since been amended, but not in any way that affects this *807 appeal.”
In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010). · cites it 2× “22 M.R.S. §§ 4034(2), 4035(2) (2009); see also 22 M.”
In re Child of Radience K., 2019 ME 73 (Me. 2019). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(4). The court also addressed the pertinent provisions of ICWA, finding that active, albeit unsuccessful, efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that continued custody of the child by the parents would result in serious…”
Show all 82 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4034(1) — 6 cases
In re Cameron Z., 2016 ME 162 (Me. 2016). “Title 22 M.R.S. § 4034(1) has since been amended, but not in any way that affects this *807 appeal.”
In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152 (Me. 2019). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(1) (2018). The court (Duddy, J.”
In re N.W., 2013 ME 64 (Me. 2013).
In Re Janna Lynn M., 2002 ME 45 (Me. 2002).
In re Child of Scott A., 2019 ME 123 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4034(2) — 26 cases
In Re Heather C., 2000 ME 99 (Me. 2000). “If, after hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence “that there is an immediate risk of serious harm to the child,” 22 M.R.S.A. § 4034(2), it may continue the preliminary protection order and may order that the Department or another person take custody of the…”
In Re Erica B., 520 A.2d 342 (Me. 1987). “argues that the Superior Court erred in dismissing her appeal because the preliminary hearing held under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4034 is a proceeding separate and distinguishable from the final protection hearing under 22 M.”
In Re Matthew W., 2006 ME 67 (Me. 2006).
In re B.C., 58 A.3d 1118 (Me. 2012).
In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010). “22 M.R.S. §§ 4034(2), 4035(2) (2009); see also 22 M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4034(3) — 5 cases
In re Christine M., 194 A.3d 390 (Me. 2018).
In re Child of Stephenie F., 2018 ME 163 (Me. 2018).
In re Stephenie F., 198 A.3d 203 (Me. 2018).
In re Child of Amber D., 2020 ME 30 (Me. 2020).
In re J.V., 2015 ME 163 (Me. 2015).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4034(4) — 34 cases
In Re Kristy Y., 2000 ME 98 (Me. 2000). “By operation of section 4006, orders issued pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4034 are interlocutory orders and, therefore, not subject to appeal.”
In Re Heather C., 2000 ME 99 (Me. 2000). “If, after hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence “that there is an immediate risk of serious harm to the child,” 22 M.R.S.A. § 4034(2), it may continue the preliminary protection order and may order that the Department or another person take custody of the…”
In re Child of Radience K., 2019 ME 73 (Me. 2019). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(4). The court also addressed the pertinent provisions of ICWA, finding that active, albeit unsuccessful, efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that continued custody of the child by the parents would result in serious…”
In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152 (Me. 2019). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4034(1) (2018). The court (Duddy, J.”
In re Child. of Tiyonie R., 2019 ME 34 (Me. 2019).
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.