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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4035 (2026)

Hearing on jeopardy order petition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Hearing required.  The court shall hold a hearing prior to making a jeopardy order.  
[PL 1997, c. 715, Pt. A, §7 (AMD).]
2.  Adjudication.  After hearing evidence, the court shall make a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, as to whether the child is in circumstances of jeopardy to the child's health or welfare.  
A. The court shall make a fresh determination of the question of jeopardy and may not give preclusive effect to the findings of fact made at the conclusion of the hearing under section 4034, subsection 4.   [PL 2001, c. 696, §30 (NEW).]
B. The court shall make findings of fact on the record upon which the jeopardy determination is made.   [PL 2001, c. 696, §30 (NEW).]
C. The court shall make a jeopardy determination with regard to each parent who has been properly served.   [PL 2001, c. 696, §30 (NEW).]
[PL 2001, c. 696, §30 (AMD).]
2-A.  Conviction or adjudication for certain sex offenses; presumption.  There is a rebuttable presumption:  
A. That the person seeking custody or contact with the child would create a situation of jeopardy for the child if any contact were to be permitted and that contact is not in the best interest of the child if the court finds that the person:  
(1) Has been convicted of an offense listed in Title 19‑A, section 1653, subsection 6‑A, paragraph A in which the victim was a minor at the time of the offense and the person was at least 5 years older than the minor at the time of the offense except that, if the offense was gross sexual assault under Title 17‑A, section 253, subsection 1, paragraph B or C, or an offense in another jurisdiction that involves conduct that is substantially similar to that contained in Title 17‑A, section 253, subsection 1, paragraph B or C, and the minor victim submitted as a result of compulsion, the presumption applies regardless of the ages of the person and the minor victim at the time of the offense; or  
(2) Has been adjudicated in an action under Title 22, chapter 1071 of sexually abusing a person who was a minor at the time of the abuse.  
The person seeking custody or contact with the child may produce evidence to rebut the presumption; and   [PL 2007, c. 513, §6 (AMD).]
B. That the parent or person responsible for the child would create a situation of jeopardy for the child if the parent or person allows, encourages or fails to prevent contact between the child and a person who:  
(1) Has been convicted of an offense listed in Title 19‑A, section 1653, subsection 6‑A, paragraph A in which the victim was a minor at the time of the offense and the person was at least 5 years older than the minor at the time of the offense except that, if the offense was gross sexual assault under Title 17‑A, section 253, subsection 1, paragraph B or C and the minor victim submitted as a result of compulsion, the presumption applies regardless of the ages of the person and the minor victim at the time of the offense; or  
(2) Has been adjudicated in an action under Title 22, chapter 1071 of sexually abusing a person who was a minor at the time of the abuse.  
The parent or person responsible for the child may produce evidence to rebut the presumption.   [PL 2005, c. 366, §7 (NEW).]
[PL 2007, c. 513, §6 (AMD).]
3.  Grounds for disposition.  If the court determines that the child is in circumstances of jeopardy to the child's health or welfare, the court shall hear any relevant evidence regarding proposed dispositions, including written or oral reports, recommendations or case plans. The court shall then make a written order of any disposition under section 4036. If, after reasonable effort, the department has been unable to serve a parent by the time of the hearing under subsection 1, the court may order any disposition under section 4036 until such time as the parent is served and a jeopardy determination is made with regard to that parent. If possible, this dispositional phase must be conducted immediately after the adjudicatory phase. Written materials to be offered as evidence must be made available to each party's counsel and the guardian ad litem reasonably in advance of the dispositional phase.  
[PL 2001, c. 696, §31 (AMD).]
4.  Final protection order. 
[PL 1997, c. 715, Pt. A, §8 (RP).]
4-A.  Jeopardy order.  The court shall issue a jeopardy order within 120 days of the filing of the child protection petition.  
This time period does not apply if good cause is shown. Good cause does not include a scheduling problem.  
[PL 1997, c. 715, Pt. A, §9 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW). PL 1983, c. 184, §5 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 176, §2 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 481, §2 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 475, §1 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 715, §§A6-9 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 696, §§30,31 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 366, §7 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 513, §6 (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 156 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: In re Child of Ryan F., 2020 ME 21 (Me. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Child of Ryan F., 2020 ME 21 (Me. 2020). · cites it 12× “) finding that the child is in jeopardy pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2018). Both parents contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding of jeopardy, arguing that jeopardy did not exist at the time of the hearing, and that they have participated in all…”
In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “Notwithstanding the convictions, the court allowed the parents to offer evidence to challenge the cause of Nathaniel’s death.”
In Re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1983). · cites it 5× “Appellant, the mother of Sabrina, Dawn-Marie and Daniel, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirming two orders of the District Court 1 that granted custody of her children to the Maine Department of Human Services (DHS) pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. §§…”
In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152 (Me. 2019). · cites it 3× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2018). Prior to the hearing, the court (Moskowitz, J.”
In Re Heather C., 2000 ME 99 (Me. 2000). · cites it 7× “), pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. §§ 4035, 4036 (1992 & Supp. 1999), finding that Heather was in circumstances of jeopardy and awarding custody to the Department of Human Services.”
In Re Scott S., 2001 ME 114 (Me. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4035 (1992 & Supp.2000) (requiring a preponderance of the evidence standard in jeopardy hearings); In re Christmas C.”
In re Child. of Bethmarie R., 2018 ME 96 (Me. 2018). · cites it 4× “) finding jeopardy to two of her children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2017) and ordering the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) to cease reunification efforts pursuant to 22 M.”
In Re Kaleb D., 2001 ME 55 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4035 (1992 & Supp.2000) (stating that a final protection order may be issued if the District Court finds that the children are in circumstances of jeopardy to their health or welfare).”
In re Paige L., 2017 ME 97 (Me. 2017). · cites it 4× “) after a jeopardy hearing was conducted pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2016). The court’s initial jeopardy judgment dismissed the child protection action and awarded sole parental rights over the child to the mother by amending a preexisting parental rights and responsibilities…”
In re Emma B., 2017 ME 187 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “) finding that the child is in circumstances of jeopardy, see 22 M.R.S. §§ 4035, 4036 (2016), and ordering that the child be placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services and that the Department cease reunification efforts with him.”
In re Dustin C., 952 A.2d 993 (Me. 2008). · cites it 5× “1 Specifically, the mother contends that the court erred in appointing the permanency guardians, and in determining that she did not overcome the presumption of 22 M.R.S. § 4035(2-A)(B)(2) (2007). 2 Be *994 cause we agree with the Department of Health and Human Services that the…”
In Re Erica B., 520 A.2d 342 (Me. 1987). · cites it 3× “§ 4034 is a proceeding separate and distinguishable from the final protection hearing under 22 M.R.S.A. § 4035. She points out that under section 4034(2), before the temporary removal of a child from a parent can be ordered or the rights of a parent otherwise limited, the court…”
Show all 156 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4035(1) — 17 cases
In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017). “Notwithstanding the convictions, the court allowed the parents to offer evidence to challenge the cause of Nathaniel’s death.”
In re Child of Nicholas P., 2019 ME 152 (Me. 2019). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2018). Prior to the hearing, the court (Moskowitz, J.”
In Re Alana S., 2002 ME 126 (Me. 2002).
In re Child of Lacy H., 2019 ME 110 (Me. 2019).
In re D.P., 2013 ME 40 (Me. 2013).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4035(2) — 60 cases
In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017). “Notwithstanding the convictions, the court allowed the parents to offer evidence to challenge the cause of Nathaniel’s death.”
In re Child. of Bethmarie R., 2018 ME 96 (Me. 2018). “) finding jeopardy to two of her children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2017) and ordering the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) to cease reunification efforts pursuant to 22 M.”
In re Child of Ryan F., 2020 ME 21 (Me. 2020). “) finding that the child is in jeopardy pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2018). Both parents contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s finding of jeopardy, arguing that jeopardy did not exist at the time of the hearing, and that they have participated in all…”
In re Child of James R., 2018 ME 50 (Me. 2018).
In Re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1983). “Appellant, the mother of Sabrina, Dawn-Marie and Daniel, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirming two orders of the District Court 1 that granted custody of her children to the Maine Department of Human Services (DHS) pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. §§…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4035(2)(A) — 1 case
Adult Guardianship & Conservatorship of T., 2022 ME 51 (Me. 2022).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4035(2)(C) — 2 cases
In re Paige L., 2017 ME 97 (Me. 2017). “) after a jeopardy hearing was conducted pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2016). The court’s initial jeopardy judgment dismissed the child protection action and awarded sole parental rights over the child to the mother by amending a preexisting parental rights and responsibilities…”
In re Tabitha R., 827 A.2d 830 (Me. 2003).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4035(3) — 7 cases
In Re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1983). “Appellant, the mother of Sabrina, Dawn-Marie and Daniel, appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court, Cumberland County, affirming two orders of the District Court 1 that granted custody of her children to the Maine Department of Human Services (DHS) pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. §§…”
In Re Chelsea C., 2005 ME 105 (Me. 2005).
In re Paige L., 2017 ME 97 (Me. 2017). “) after a jeopardy hearing was conducted pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4035 (2016). The court’s initial jeopardy judgment dismissed the child protection action and awarded sole parental rights over the child to the mother by amending a preexisting parental rights and responsibilities…”
In Re Matthew W., 2006 ME 67 (Me. 2006).
In re Tabitha R., 827 A.2d 830 (Me. 2003).
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.