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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B (2026)

Permanency plans

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Mandated permanency planning hearing.  Unless subsequent judicial reviews are not required pursuant to section 4038, subsection 1‑A, the District Court shall conduct a permanency planning hearing and shall determine a permanency plan within the earlier of:  
A. Thirty days after a court order to cease reunification; and   [PL 2005, c. 372, §6 (NEW).]
B. Twelve months after the time a child is considered to have entered foster care. A child is considered to have entered foster care on the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect or on the 60th day after removal of the child from home, whichever occurs first.   [PL 2005, c. 372, §6 (NEW).]
[PL 2005, c. 372, §6 (NEW).]
2.  Subsequent permanency planning hearings.  Unless subsequent judicial reviews are not required pursuant to section 4038, subsection 1‑A, the District Court shall conduct a permanency planning hearing within 12 months of the date of any prior permanency planning order.  
[PL 2005, c. 372, §6 (NEW).]
3.  Permanency planning orders.  After each permanency planning hearing, the District Court shall adopt a permanency plan for a child that complies with subsection 4. The court shall enter the order within the time limitations contained in subsection 1 or 2, whichever is applicable to the permanency planning hearing.  
[PL 2005, c. 372, §6 (NEW).]
4.  Contents of permanency plan.  A permanency plan for a child under this section must contain determinations on the following issues.  
A. The permanency plan must determine whether and when, if applicable, the child will be:  
(1) Returned to a parent. Before the court may enter an order returning the custody of the child to a parent, the parent must show that the parent has carried out the responsibilities set forth in section 4041, subsection 1‑A, paragraph B; that to the court's satisfaction the parent has rectified and resolved the problems that caused the removal of the child from home and any subsequent problems that would interfere with the parent's ability to care for the child and protect the child from jeopardy; and that the parent can protect the child from jeopardy;  
(2) Placed for adoption, in which case the department shall file a petition for termination of parental rights;  
(3) Cared for by a permanency guardian, as provided in section 4038‑C, or a guardian appointed by the Probate Court pursuant to Title 18‑C, sections 5‑204 to 5‑206;  
(4) Placed with a fit and willing relative; or  
(5) Placed in another planned permanent living arrangement. The District Court may adopt another planned permanent living arrangement as the permanency plan for the child only after the department has documented to the court a compelling reason for determining that it would not be in the best interests of the child to be returned home, be referred for termination of parental rights or be placed for adoption, be cared for by a permanency guardian or be placed with a fit and willing relative.   [PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. C, §65 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 417, Pt. B, §14 (AFF).]
B. In the case of a child placed outside the state in which the parents of the child live, the permanency plan must determine whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.   [PL 2005, c. 372, §6 (NEW).]
C. In the case of a child who is 14 years of age or older, the permanency plan must determine the services needed to assist the child to make the transition from foster care to independent living.   [PL 2015, c. 381, §5 (AMD).]
D. The permanency plan must ensure that all in-state and out-of-state placements are considered to provide the child with all possible permanency options.   [PL 2009, c. 557, §2 (NEW).]
[PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. C, §65 (AMD); PL 2019, c. 417, Pt. B, §14 (AFF).]
5.  Wishes of child.  The District Court shall consider the wishes of a child, in a manner appropriate to the age of the child, in making a determination under this section.  
[PL 2009, c. 557, §3 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 2005, c. 372, §6 (NEW). PL 2009, c. 557, §§2, 3 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 381, §5 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. C, §65 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. F, §1 (AFF). PL 2019, c. 417, Pt. B, §14 (AFF).
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), 2008–2026 · leading case: In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018). · cites it 3× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B (2017). After recognizing the policy found in statutes and case law that favors permanence for children, the court stated that it had "no difficulty in finding that the plan of either permanency guardianship or adoption is clearly in the best interest of…”
In re Kenneth S., 2017 ME 45 (Me. 2017). “3 [¶6] Additionally, we note that permanency planning for a child in foster care, 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4) (2016), and the best interest determination to be made in a termination proceeding, 22 M.”
In re Child. of Quincy A., 2023 ME 49 (Me. 2023). · cites it 2× “22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(3), (4)(A) (2023).3 [¶22] The Legislature has provided five different permanency options, including adoption and permanency guardianship.”
In Re David W., 2010 ME 119 (Me. 2010). “” 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A). In determining the appropriate permanency plan, “it is the policy in this State that permanency plans for children, who are the subject of protection proceedings, be implemented so that children will have stability and certainty.”
In re Child of Jillian T., 2020 ME 54 (Me. 2020). · cites it 7× “The mother challenges the court’s finding of the date on which the child is considered to have entered foster care within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. §§ 4038-B(1)(B), 4041(1-A), 4052(2-A)(A)(1) (2018).”
In Re Child. of Destiny H., 2024 ME 66 (Me. 2024). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B (2024). 5  “meet with the Department, the Department’s counsel, and the GAL to provide an explanation as to the injuries sustained by [the younger child] and discuss the allegations made by” the older child, “be open and honest with this information,” and…”
In re Dustin C., 952 A.2d 993 (Me. 2008). “22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A)(3) (2007). Regardless of which process gives rise to the guardianship, the powers and duties of the guardian remain the same: “A permanency guardian has all of the powers and duties of a guardian of a minor pursuant to Title 18-A, section 5-209.”
In re Child of Jillian T., 2020 ME 54 (Me. 2020). · cites it 7× “The mother challenges the court’s finding of the date on which the child is considered to have entered foster care within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. §§ 4038-B(1)(B), 4041(1-A), 4052(2-A)(A)(1) (2018).”
In re Child of Carl D., 2019 ME 67 (Me. 2019). “22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A)(5) (2018). APPLA was not an available option at this, or any, stage of the case because the child has not yet attained fourteen years of age.”
In re Kenneth S., 157 A.3d 244 (Me. 2017). “3 *247 [¶ 6] Additionally, we note that permanency planning for a child in foster care, 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4) (2016), and the best interest determination to be made in a termination proceeding, 22 M.”
In re Tacoma M., 2017 ME 85 (Me. 2017). “§ 9-103(b) (2016), not through the trial court’s determination that adoption is the permanency plan for this child, see 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A) (2016). 3 . Because we affirm the judgment terminating mother’s parental rights, we do not address the cease reunification order.”
In re J.I., 2015 ME 130 (Me. 2015). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4) (2014). One family member was ruled out as a safe placement, and the other — the father’s sister in New Jersey— withdrew her application to become a placement for the children.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(1) — 1 case
In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B (2017). After recognizing the policy found in statutes and case law that favors permanence for children, the court stated that it had "no difficulty in finding that the plan of either permanency guardianship or adoption is clearly in the best interest of…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(1)(B) — 2 cases
In re Child of Jillian T., 2020 ME 54 (Me. 2020). “The mother challenges the court’s finding of the date on which the child is considered to have entered foster care within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. §§ 4038-B(1)(B), 4041(1-A), 4052(2-A)(A)(1) (2018).”
In re Child of Jillian T., 2020 ME 54 (Me. 2020). “The mother challenges the court’s finding of the date on which the child is considered to have entered foster care within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. §§ 4038-B(1)(B), 4041(1-A), 4052(2-A)(A)(1) (2018).”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(3) — 5 cases
In re Child. of Quincy A., 2023 ME 49 (Me. 2023). “22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(3), (4)(A) (2023).3 [¶22] The Legislature has provided five different permanency options, including adoption and permanency guardianship.”
In re Dominic B., 167 A.3d 555 (Me. 2017).
In re Dominic B., 167 A.3d 555 (Me. 2017).
In re Dominic B., 167 A.3d 555 (Me. 2017).
In re Dominic B., 2017 ME 149 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(4) — 3 cases
In re Kenneth S., 2017 ME 45 (Me. 2017). “3 [¶6] Additionally, we note that permanency planning for a child in foster care, 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4) (2016), and the best interest determination to be made in a termination proceeding, 22 M.”
In re Kenneth S., 157 A.3d 244 (Me. 2017). “3 *247 [¶ 6] Additionally, we note that permanency planning for a child in foster care, 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4) (2016), and the best interest determination to be made in a termination proceeding, 22 M.”
In re J.I., 2015 ME 130 (Me. 2015). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4) (2014). One family member was ruled out as a safe placement, and the other — the father’s sister in New Jersey— withdrew her application to become a placement for the children.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(4)(A) — 4 cases
In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B (2017). After recognizing the policy found in statutes and case law that favors permanence for children, the court stated that it had "no difficulty in finding that the plan of either permanency guardianship or adoption is clearly in the best interest of…”
In Re David W., 2010 ME 119 (Me. 2010). “” 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A). In determining the appropriate permanency plan, “it is the policy in this State that permanency plans for children, who are the subject of protection proceedings, be implemented so that children will have stability and certainty.”
In re Child. of Quincy A., 2023 ME 49 (Me. 2023). “22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(3), (4)(A) (2023).3 [¶22] The Legislature has provided five different permanency options, including adoption and permanency guardianship.”
In re Tacoma M., 2017 ME 85 (Me. 2017). “§ 9-103(b) (2016), not through the trial court’s determination that adoption is the permanency plan for this child, see 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A) (2016). 3 . Because we affirm the judgment terminating mother’s parental rights, we do not address the cease reunification order.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(4)(A)(2) — 1 case
In re J.I., 2015 ME 130 (Me. 2015). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4) (2014). One family member was ruled out as a safe placement, and the other — the father’s sister in New Jersey— withdrew her application to become a placement for the children.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(4)(A)(3) — 1 case
In re Dustin C., 952 A.2d 993 (Me. 2008). “22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A)(3) (2007). Regardless of which process gives rise to the guardianship, the powers and duties of the guardian remain the same: “A permanency guardian has all of the powers and duties of a guardian of a minor pursuant to Title 18-A, section 5-209.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038-B(4)(A)(5) — 1 case
In re Child of Carl D., 2019 ME 67 (Me. 2019). “22 M.R.S. § 4038-B(4)(A)(5) (2018). APPLA was not an available option at this, or any, stage of the case because the child has not yet attained fourteen years of age.”
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.