Use names only when the record supports it.
Names and titles belong only where the source is a court record, docket entry, official correspondence, public filing, public compensation record, or another record-supported material.
Evidence standards
Evidence should strengthen public trust, not ask for it.
A claim matrix, source ladder, safe-wording guide, and review path for the public-record and reform arguments on JTforME.
This is public education and public-record organization, not legal advice, emergency help, or private case intake.
Evidence discipline
Make the site harder to mischaracterize.
The source layer should let a reader separate official records, research, practical family tools, campaign argument, and proposed law. This page gives the site a claim matrix, safe-wording rules, and a simple way to pressure-test public statements before they move into a post, PDF, dashboard card, or initiative section.
Public accountability standard
Record-supported public accountability notice.
For avoidance of doubt, this public-review work may identify public officials, court personnel, agency personnel, and publicly compensated actors by name and title where their actions appear in court records, docket entries, official correspondence, public filings, or other record-supported materials.
Any such references will be made for purposes of accuracy, source attribution, public accountability, and institutional reform. They are not intended as personal attacks. Where a statement concerns disputed facts, the statement should identify the facts as disputed. Where a statement concerns a filed document, order, docket event, or official communication, the statement should describe it by date, role, and record source.
The point is not personality. The point is that children and families experience institutional harm through identifiable decisions, omissions, delays, procedural barriers, and implementation failures. Public accountability requires enough specificity that the pattern can be audited rather than dismissed as a generalized complaint.
Separate fact from dispute.
Filed documents, orders, docket events, and official communications should be described by date, role, and record source. Disputed facts should be marked as disputed.
Keep accountability institutional.
The purpose is accuracy, source attribution, public accountability, and institutional reform, not personal attacks or unsupported motive claims.
Privacy boundary: this standard does not invite private case intake. Do not publish child names, protected addresses, sealed records, medical or school records, confidential exhibits, or emergency requests through public campaign materials.
Evidence ladder
Different source types do different jobs.
Official Maine records
Best for dates, forms, procedure doors, published court statistics, DHHS/OCFS routing, child-support agency information, and official requirements.
Highest for official factsResearch and public reports
Best for risk patterns, child-impact language, system-design concerns, access-to-justice limits, and why delay or instability can matter.
Strong for patternsFOCaF tools and PDFs
Best for printable worksheets, family-support routines, provider coordination, and practical public education that should not become private intake.
Practical supportCampaign argument
Best for explaining the reform position. It should point back to the record and avoid pretending that interpretation is the same thing as official fact.
Opinion/reform framePersonal stories
Best for showing why people care. They are not a substitute for official data, and they should never expose private children or sealed information.
Use carefullyDraft legislation
Best for proposed remedies. It must be reviewed for due process, safety exceptions, fiscal capacity, implementation, and separation-of-powers risk.
Needs red-team reviewClaim matrix
Public claims now have strength labels and safe-use notes.
Download: evidence_claim_matrix.csv · Machine-readable: evidence-claim-matrix.json
| Claim | Strength | Source basis | Safe use |
|---|---|---|---|
| System delay can become a harm multiplier for families and children. | High | Court reports, research summaries, and family-process literature. | Use as a risk/pressure claim; avoid saying every delay is unlawful or intentional. |
| Maine family matters remained above the pre-pandemic baseline in the cited annual-report period. | High when source date is shown | Maine Judicial Branch annual report and dashboard method notes. | Always show year, source date, and the exact metric used. |
| Court capacity and workload constraints are documented public issues. | High | Maine workload assessment and court system reports. | Do not reduce all problems to staffing; connect capacity to measurable process controls. |
| Housing instability can overlap with family stability, child time, and court pressure. | Moderate | MaineHousing, 211, court filing pressure indicators, and practical-support routes. | State as overlap/pressure, not as one-to-one causation. |
| Public tools should route people to official Maine doors before using informal copies. | High | Official court, DHHS, OCFS, child support, legal-aid, and 211 links. | Warn against stale forms and unofficial procedural claims. |
| Citizen-initiative language needs due-process, abuse-safety, fiscal, and implementation review before submission. | High | Legal-risk register, red-team review, public RFC/change log. | Keep draft/pre-submission label visible until official steps are actually complete. |
Safe public wording
Strong claims should be precise, not louder.
Use this pattern
- “The public record shows…” when citing official data.
- “Research identifies this as a risk factor…” when citing studies or reports.
- “This site argues…” when making a reform position.
- “This draft proposes…” when discussing initiative text.
- “Verify the current form or rule with the official source.”
Avoid this pattern
- Do not claim motives without evidence.
- Do not turn every personal example into a statewide fact.
- Do not collapse family court, DHHS/OCFS, criminal process, and housing into one legal lane.
- Do not publish private child names, sealed material, or unresolved private allegations.
- Do not present pre-submission initiative text as an official ballot measure.
Public-use checklist: download the evidence-safe-wording checklist.
Connected review doors
Evidence standards now connect to the dashboard and the initiative review.
Sources + Proof
Use the underlying source cards, official PDFs, and visual proof system.
Open sourcesDashboard 2.0
Use metric definitions, freshness notes, source links, and gaps before repeating numbers.
Open Dashboard 2.0Initiative red-team
Use the issue register before rewriting the next initiative revision.
Open initiative reviewPublic packets + access
The site now has reader-specific packets, structured SEO data, and stronger keyboard/mobile affordances.
Use public packets for reporters, officials, family helpers, skeptical reviewers, and public meetings. This lane also adds author/canonical metadata, JSON-LD, skip links, focus states, reduced-motion support, mobile tap-target hardening, and print-safe styles.