No private case intake: do not send child names, sealed records, private allegations, or confidential files through public campaign links. Privacy boundarySafety first
Site boundary: JTforME is the campaign, public-record, citizen-initiative, and Maine family-help routing hub. For volunteer-only public education, printable tools, and research/source materials, use FOCaF.
Maine families should be able to see what must change, how progress will be measured, who is responsible for reporting it, and what happens when delay or opacity continues.
This page states the reform agenda without changing the citizen-initiative text. It is a public accountability framework: narrower than a campaign slogan, broader than a single case, and designed for verification.
Read the demands Inspect the evidence matrix Corrections + reply
They earn trust through timely execution, understandable rules, reviewable records, correction mechanisms, child-impact safeguards, and published performance. The standard is not perfection. The standard is whether the system can identify harm, correct course, explain delay, and show improvement.
Define expected intervals for scheduling, decisions, order entry, enforcement review, and responses to time-sensitive child-impact concerns. Publish exceptions and reasons for material delay.
Proof of progress: baseline, target, quarterly results, and age-of-case distribution.
Use a documented review trigger when prolonged uncertainty affects contact, schooling, treatment coordination, housing stability, or compliance with existing orders.
Proof of progress: trigger criteria, review completion rate, action taken, and follow-up date.
An order that is not implemented is not a completed outcome. Track issuance, service, required action, compliance questions, and unresolved barriers without exposing protected family information.
Proof of progress: implementation checkpoints and unresolved-action reporting.
Families should be able to identify the official form, office, deadline, fee-waiver route, accessibility support, interpreter route, and next procedural step without relying on private legal interpretation.
Proof of progress: task completion testing, broken-link rate, mobile usability, and plain-language review.
Publish pending workload, age bands, continuances where data permit, capacity constraints, vacancy effects, and known data limitations. Do not convert missing data into reassuring conclusions.
Proof of progress: source dates, definitions, downloadable data, and revision history.
Capacity limits may explain delay; they do not eliminate the need to measure its effects, prioritize urgent harm, request resources, and report what remains unresolved.
Proof of progress: named owner, mitigation plan, target date, and public status.
Public accountability materials should provide a clear route for source corrections, material disputes, contextual responses, and dated change logs while preserving substantiated public records.
Proof of progress: response log, correction date, source basis, and unresolved-dispute note.
No efficiency measure should punish good-faith safety reporting, erase coercive-control concerns, presume disputed facts, or replace individualized review.
Proof of progress: safety exceptions, due-process checks, and independent review.
Create a recurring public report that states what improved, what did not, what remains unknown, and what corrective action is underway. Success claims should be traceable to disclosed methods.
Proof of progress: recurring scorecard, public methodology, and archived editions.
A standard hidden in internal practice cannot reliably create public accountability.
The metric, denominator, time period, exclusions, and source date should be understandable.
Every unresolved issue needs an accountable office or decision owner, not a general reference to “the system.”
There must be a correction route, escalation path, and evidence that the repair was completed.
Administrative convenience cannot be the only measure of whether a process is functioning.
Define the process, metric, source, known limitations, and current performance before announcing success.
State what improvement means, by when, and which safeguards cannot be traded away.
Name the office responsible for execution, reporting, and corrective action.
Report gains, misses, data gaps, and revised action without burying adverse findings.
These demands concern process quality, public administration, measurement, access, and institutional accountability. They do not direct a court toward a result in an individual case.
Professional independence and due process remain essential. Accountability is strongest when it measures systems without presuming misconduct from delay alone.
This page does not amend or restate the citizen-initiative text. The initiative remains in its separate public-review lane exactly as carried into this pass.