By The Maine Mirror | 4-29-26
A formal complaint detailing alleged misconduct, retaliation, and unlawful surveillance tied to Maine’s Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) and DHHS was submitted directly to Biddeford city leadership.
It did not get lost.
It was not returned.
It was not ignored at the door.
It was received, signed for, and acknowledged.
And then—nothing happened.
The Complaint Was Delivered—and Confirmed
On September 8, 2025, a formal complaint packet was physically delivered to Biddeford city leadership and signed for by Chief Operating Officer Brian S. Phinney.
This moment matters.
It establishes that the highest levels of city leadership were not only made aware—but formally notified.
Yet acknowledgment did not lead to action.
(Exhibit A – Signed receipt confirming delivery of a formal complaint to Biddeford city leadership, including acknowledgment by Chief Operating Officer Brian S. Phinney.)
The Initial Outreach: A Call for Help
Prior to the confirmed delivery, direct outreach had already been made.
On August 26, 2025, a detailed email was sent to Biddeford City Manager Truc Dever and multiple members of city leadership outlining the complaint and requesting intervention.
The concerns were clearly documented. The request was direct: review the information and take appropriate action.
No meaningful response followed.
(Exhibit B – Email sent to Biddeford City Manager and city leadership detailing allegations and requesting intervention.)
“This Agency Cannot Help You”
As the complaint was escalated through local channels, Biddeford Police Chief JoAnne Fisk issued a response:
“I have reviewed your email and I am afraid that this agency cannot help you.”
Rather than investigate, the matter was redirected to the Maine State Police Computer Crimes Unit, indicating it fell outside the department’s jurisdiction.
(Exhibit C – Response from Biddeford Police Chief stating the agency could not assist and directing the matter elsewhere.)
Referred Upward—Then Declined Again
Following that direction, the complaint was brought to the Maine State Police.
The response:
“Unfortunately, our unit cannot assist you with your request.”
In a separate communication, it was further stated that the unit could not offer legal guidance or make referrals.
(Exhibit D – Maine State Police Computer Crimes Unit declining assistance and refusing to provide referral or guidance.)
A Pattern of Redirection
The timeline that emerges is not one of oversight—but of repetition:
- A complaint is formally submitted and acknowledged
- Local law enforcement declines involvement
- State-level authorities decline involvement
- No agency assumes responsibility
- No investigation is initiated
At one point, the only remaining suggestion was to contact federal authorities, including the FBI or Department of Justice.
A local complaint had effectively been escalated out of the state—without ever being addressed within it.
“Sent in Circles”
In a follow-up communication to Chief Fisk and multiple state officials, the experience was summarized:
“I have reached out to the Attorney General, the Governor’s office, and numerous other state officials, only to be stonewalled, dismissed, or redirected to yet another office.”
The complaint outlined serious concerns, including:
- Alleged false statements made to law enforcement
- Retaliatory no-trespass orders
- ADA-related violations
- Coercive actions affecting parental rights
Despite the volume and consistency of these claims, no agency identified in the correspondence initiated action.
(Exhibit E – Follow-up email documenting repeated attempts to seek assistance and lack of response across multiple agencies.)
The Final Escalation—and Final Denial
Even after being referred through Biddeford Police, the complaint reached the Maine State Police Computer Crimes Unit through official channels.
The expectation at this stage was clear: that a law enforcement referral would trigger review or, at minimum, a defined next step.
Instead, the response remained unchanged:
“Unfortunately, our unit cannot assist you with your request.”
The communication confirmed that the unit’s role is limited to assisting other law enforcement agencies and handling specific categories of investigations—effectively placing the complaint outside their scope, even after referral.
No investigation was initiated.
No alternative agency was identified.
No forward path was provided.
The escalation did not fail due to lack of effort.
It failed despite following the process.
(Exhibit F – Email from Maine State Police Computer Crimes Unit confirming they could not assist, even after the request was referred through Biddeford Police.)
A Broader Context Emerges
In April 2026, The Maine Wire reported that Biddeford’s city manager resigned after just nine months in the role, citing “systemic issues” within the city.
That reporting did not reference this complaint directly.
But it raises a question:
What do “systemic issues” look like in practice?
In this case, they appear as:
- A complaint formally received at the highest levels
- Multiple agencies declining involvement
- Responsibility transferred—but never accepted
- A process that redirects—but does not resolve
When Acknowledgment Doesn’t Lead to Action
This case is not about access.
Access was achieved.
The complaint was delivered, received, and acknowledged.
The issue is what followed:
No investigation. No ownership. No outcome.
When systems respond without acting, the failure is no longer procedural.
It becomes structural.
Where Does Accountability Exist?
If a complaint can be formally acknowledged, circulated across agencies, and still go unaddressed—
Where does accountability exist?
And more importantly:
Who is responsible for ensuring it does?
The Lived Reality Behind “Systemic Issues”
For those navigating it, “systemic issues” are not abstract.
They look like:
- Being told to go somewhere else
- Following every direction given
- Reaching the end of every path
- And finding no resolution at any level
This is not a question of awareness.
It is a question of response.
The Maine Mirror will continue to document cases where acknowledgment does not lead to action—and where systems designed for accountability fail to produce it.
If you have experienced similar patterns, you can reach out confidentially:
Because accountability doesn’t begin with conclusions—
it begins with what can be proven.
Discover more from The Maine Mirror
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.