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

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038 (2026)

Mandated review; review on motion

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Mandated review.  If a court has made a jeopardy order, it shall review the case at least once every 6 months, unless the child has been emancipated or adopted.  
[PL 1997, c. 715, Pt. B, §7 (AMD).]
1-A.  No mandated review.  Notwithstanding subsection 1, no subsequent judicial review is required unless petitioned for by any party or unless specifically ordered by the court:  
A. When custody has been granted to a person other than a parent or the department;   [PL 2007, c. 284, §6 (AMD).]
B. When custody has been granted to a parent who did not have custody at the time the child protection petition was filed; or   [PL 2007, c. 284, §6 (AMD).]
C.   [PL 2003, c. 408, §4 (RP).]
D.   [PL 2003, c. 408, §5 (RP).]
E. When a permanency guardianship has been established pursuant to section 4038‑C.   [PL 2007, c. 284, §6 (NEW).]
[PL 2007, c. 284, §6 (AMD).]
2.  Review on motion.  The court, the child's parent, custodian or guardian ad litem or a party to the proceeding, except a parent whose rights have been terminated under subchapter VI, may move for judicial review. The moving party shall have the burden of going forward.  
[PL 1985, c. 739, §12 (AMD).]
3.  Notice of review.  Notice of the reviews must be given to all parties to the initial proceeding according to District Court Civil Rule 4. Notice may not be given to a parent whose rights have been terminated under subchapter 6. The department shall provide written notice of all reviews and hearings in advance of the proceeding to the foster parent, preadoptive parent and relative providing care and to the child if the child is 14 years of age or older. The notice must be dated and signed, must include a statement that the foster parent, preadoptive parent and relative providing care and the child if the child is 14 years of age or older are entitled to notice of and an opportunity to be heard in any review or hearing held with respect to the child and must contain the following language:
"The right to be heard includes only the right to testify and does not include the right to present other witnesses or evidence, to attend any other portion of the review or hearing or to have access to pleadings or records."
 
A copy of the notice must be filed with the court prior to the review or hearing.  
[PL 2025, c. 272, §6 (AMD).]
3-A.  Prehearing conference.  The court may convene a prehearing conference to clarify the disputed issues and review the possibility of settlement.  
[PL 2001, c. 559, Pt. CC, §2 (NEW).]
4.  Disposition. 
[PL 1985, c. 739, §13 (RP).]
5.  Hearing.  The court shall hear evidence and shall consider the original reason for the adjudication and disposition under sections 4035 and 4036, the events that have occurred since then and the efforts of the parties as set forth under section 4041. After hearing or by agreement, the court shall make written findings that determine:  
A. The safety of the child in the child's placement;   [PL 2003, c. 408, §6 (NEW).]
B. The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the child's placement;   [PL 2003, c. 408, §6 (NEW).]
C. The effect of a change in custody on the child;   [PL 2003, c. 408, §6 (NEW).]
D. The extent of the parties' compliance with the case plan and the extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement in foster care;   [PL 2003, c. 408, §6 (NEW).]
E. A likely date by which the child may be returned to and safely maintained in the home or placed for adoption or legal guardianship; and   [PL 2003, c. 408, §6 (NEW).]
F. If the child is 16 years of age or older, whether or not the child is receiving instruction to aid the child in independent living.   [PL 2003, c. 408, §6 (NEW).]
[PL 2003, c. 408, §6 (AMD).]
6.  Disposition.  The court may make any further order, based on a preponderance of evidence, that is authorized under section 4036.  
A.   [PL 1989, c. 270, §13 (RP).]
B.   [PL 1989, c. 270, §13 (RP).]
C.   [PL 1989, c. 270, §13 (RP).]
[PL 1989, c. 270, §13 (AMD).]
7.  Review of child in custody of the department. 
[PL 1997, c. 715, Pt. B, §9 (RP).]
7-A.  Permanency planning hearing. 
[PL 2005, c. 372, §4 (RP).]
8.  Placement in qualified residential treatment program; hearing within 60 days.  The court shall conduct a hearing to review the status of a child placed in a qualified residential treatment program and determine the appropriateness of the placement within 60 days after the child enters the program.  
A. At the hearing under this subsection, the court shall:  
(1) Review a needs assessment of the child conducted by a qualified individual;  
(2) Consider whether the needs of the child can be met through an alternative placement in a family foster home as defined in section 8101, subsection 3;  
(3) Consider whether the placement of the child in a qualified residential treatment program provides effective and appropriate care for the child in the least restrictive environment; and  
(4) Consider whether placement of the child in a qualified residential treatment program is consistent with the short-term and long-term goals for the child as specified in the permanency plan of the child protection case pursuant to section 4038‑B.   [PL 2021, c. 210, §3 (NEW).]
B. The court shall state, in writing, the reasons for its decision to approve or disapprove under this subsection the continued placement of the child in the qualified residential treatment program.   [PL 2021, c. 210, §3 (NEW).]
C. In a hearing under this subsection, records of evaluations of the child and medical, behavioral and mental health records of the child are admissible upon showing that the records contain information relevant to the issues before the court, as long as the records are made available to counsel at least 10 days prior to the hearing.   [PL 2021, c. 210, §3 (NEW).]
[PL 2021, c. 210, §3 (NEW).]
9.  Continued placement in qualified residential treatment program; judicial review.  At each review conducted pursuant to this section regarding a child placed in a qualified residential treatment program, the court shall make judicial findings, by a preponderance of the evidence, regarding the child's continued placement. The court shall review the status of a child placed in a qualified residential treatment program at every judicial review and permanency hearing and determine the continued appropriateness of placement in the qualified residential treatment program.  
A. The court shall:  
(1) Determine whether an ongoing needs assessment of the child, as prepared by qualified individuals, supports continued placement of the child in the qualified residential treatment program;  
(2) Determine whether the documentation about the child regarding the child's placement in the qualified residential treatment program supports the conclusion that it is effective and appropriate care for the child in the least restrictive environment; and  
(3) Determine whether the documentation about the child supports the conclusion that continued placement in the qualified residential treatment program is consistent with the short-term and long-term goals for the child as specified in the permanency plan of the child protection case pursuant to section 4038‑B.   [PL 2021, c. 210, §4 (NEW).]
B. The court shall state, in writing, the reasons for its decision to approve or disapprove under this subsection the continued placement of the child in the qualified residential treatment program.   [PL 2021, c. 210, §4 (NEW).]
C. In a review under this subsection regarding the child's continued placement in a qualified residential treatment program, records of evaluations of the child and medical, behavioral and mental health records of the child are admissible upon showing that the records contain information relevant to the issues before the court, as long as the records are made available to counsel at least 10 days prior to the review.   [PL 2021, c. 210, §4 (NEW).]
[PL 2021, c. 210, §4 (NEW).]
10.  Rules concerning judicial review of the placement of children in qualified residential treatment programs.  Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Supreme Judicial Court may adopt rules of pleading, practice and procedure with respect to proceedings required by subsections 8 and 9. After the effective date of the rules as adopted or amended, all laws in conflict with the rules are of no further effect.  
[PL 2021, c. 210, §5 (NEW).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 369, §12 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 185 (RPR). PL 1985, c. 739, §§11-14 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 269, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 270, §§13,14 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 176, §3 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 198, §1 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 475, §§2-6 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 715, §§B7-10 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 559, §§CC2,3 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 696, §32 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 408, §§2-6 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 372, §4 (AMD). PL 2007, c. 284, §6 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 210, §§3-5 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 272, §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 33 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005). · cites it 4× “22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(7-A) (2004). 4 Permanency planning was embraced by Congress in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), Pub.”
In re Child. of Corey W., 2019 ME 4 (Me. 2019). · cites it 3× “[¶12] First, to the extent that the father directly challenges the judicial review order containing the court's limited ratification of the Department's decision to place the children in foster care in Florida, his contention is not cognizable on appeal.”
In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66 (Me. 2017). “22 M.R.S. § 4038(5) (2016). At those reviews, the mother had notice of the hearing, court-appointed counsel, and an opportunity to challenge any evidence offered through the GAL report or otherwise.”
In Re Jamara R., 2005 ME 45 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “§ 4038(1) (2004) (requiring the court to review cases with findings of jeopardy every six months); 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(7-A) (requiring the court to conduct a permanency planning hearing within thirty days of a cease reunification order); 42 U.”
In Re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “If the court does remove the child from the custody of his parents pursuant to section 4036(1)(F), the court must review the case within 18 months of the original order, 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(1), or the parents can 'move for review if their rights have not been terminated, 22 M.”
In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038(1) (2017). We note that, pursuant to the Home Court Act, the District Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over an adoption petition if there is a pending District Court child protection proceeding involving the same child, see 4 M.”
Adoption of Michaela C., 863 A.2d 270 (Me. 2004). · cites it 2× “[¶ 6] The District Court has jurisdiction over child protection proceedings. 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.”
In Re Christopher J., 505 A.2d 795 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(2), (4) (Supp.1985-1986).”
In re Emma B., 2017 ME 187 (Me. 2017). “Finally, the father remains free to become involved in this protection case affecting his child, by moving the court for judicial review of the jeopardy order, see 22 M.R.S. § 4038(2) (2016); moving for a determination of the suitability of placing the child with him pursuant to…”
In re Jacob C., 965 A.2d 47 (Me. 2009). “The case remains viable to the extent that either party can seek modification upon motion pursuant to title 19-A or 22 M.R.S. § 4038 (2008) at any point in the future.”
In Re Alexander D., 1998 ME 207 (Me. 1998). “Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038 (1992 & Supp.1997) provides that the child's parent may move for judicial review, see § 4038(2), and § 4038(5) further provides: 5.”
In Re David W., 2010 ME 119 (Me. 2010). “See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4038(1), 4038 — B(1)(B) (2009).”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038(1) — 11 cases
In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4038(1) (2017). We note that, pursuant to the Home Court Act, the District Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over an adoption petition if there is a pending District Court child protection proceeding involving the same child, see 4 M.”
In Re Jamara R., 2005 ME 45 (Me. 2005). “§ 4038(1) (2004) (requiring the court to review cases with findings of jeopardy every six months); 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(7-A) (requiring the court to conduct a permanency planning hearing within thirty days of a cease reunification order); 42 U.”
In Re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1983). “If the court does remove the child from the custody of his parents pursuant to section 4036(1)(F), the court must review the case within 18 months of the original order, 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(1), or the parents can 'move for review if their rights have not been terminated, 22 M.”
In Re David W., 2010 ME 119 (Me. 2010). “See 22 M.R.S. §§ 4038(1), 4038 — B(1)(B) (2009).”
In re Child of Ryan F., 2020 ME 21 (Me. 2020).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038(2) — 5 cases
In re Child. of Corey W., 2019 ME 4 (Me. 2019). “[¶12] First, to the extent that the father directly challenges the judicial review order containing the court's limited ratification of the Department's decision to place the children in foster care in Florida, his contention is not cognizable on appeal.”
In Re Christopher J., 505 A.2d 795 (Me. 1986). “See 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(2), (4) (Supp.1985-1986).”
In Re Sabrina M., 460 A.2d 1009 (Me. 1983). “If the court does remove the child from the custody of his parents pursuant to section 4036(1)(F), the court must review the case within 18 months of the original order, 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038(1), or the parents can 'move for review if their rights have not been terminated, 22 M.”
In re Emma B., 2017 ME 187 (Me. 2017). “Finally, the father remains free to become involved in this protection case affecting his child, by moving the court for judicial review of the jeopardy order, see 22 M.R.S. § 4038(2) (2016); moving for a determination of the suitability of placing the child with him pursuant to…”
In re Child of Dawn B., 2019 ME 93 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038(3) — 1 case
Adoption of Michaela C., 863 A.2d 270 (Me. 2004). “[¶ 6] The District Court has jurisdiction over child protection proceedings. 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.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038(5) — 2 cases
In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66 (Me. 2017). “22 M.R.S. § 4038(5) (2016). At those reviews, the mother had notice of the hearing, court-appointed counsel, and an opportunity to challenge any evidence offered through the GAL report or otherwise.”
In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038(6) — 1 case
In re Child of Nicholas G., 2021 ME 48 (Me. 2021).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038(7) — 1 case
In Re Melanie S., 1998 ME 132 (Me. 1998).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4038(7)(B) — 1 case
Guardianship of Hughes, 1998 ME 186 (Me. 1998).
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.