By Ryan Michaels | Maine Mirror
Published: August 8th, 2026

Four exhibits from a 458-page filing raise questions about mandated reports, written communications, a child-protection Jeopardy proceeding, and what happened after serious allegations reached Maine OCFS.

A professional licensing proceeding involving Chelcie Stewart, a Maine Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) caseworker, is scheduled to reach an important stage next week.

Ahead of that proceeding, I am publishing portions of the documentary record underlying my licensing complaint so readers can understand what the allegations actually involve.

Not rumors.

Not social-media shorthand.

Not conclusions presented as though the licensing process has already determined them to be true.

The records.

And there is something important readers should understand from the beginning:

These four exhibits represent only a small portion of a 458-page filing.

The complete complaint package concerning Chelcie Stewart totals 458 pages.

It contains additional exhibits, email chains, communications, supporting documentation and allegations extending far beyond the four examples presented in this article.

The four records below are therefore a narrow selection from a substantially larger evidentiary record.

I selected them because together they illustrate several of the central questions raised by the complaint: what Stewart was told, what documentation reached her, what actions allegedly followed, and what happened as the case escalated.

This article is part of my promised five-part series examining allegations involving Maine OCFS ahead of upcoming professional licensing proceedings.

The allegations against Stewart are serious.

They also remain allegations unless and until the appropriate licensing authorities make findings. Stewart is entitled to respond to them, and her response should be considered alongside the evidence.

My purpose here is not to pronounce a verdict before that process occurs.

It is to show the public a portion of the documentary record and ask a question that runs throughout hundreds of pages:

What happened to information after it reached Chelcie Stewart?

These four exhibits help explain why I believe that question requires an answer.

---

1. What Happened After Counseling Records and a Mandated Abuse Report Reached Maine CPS?

The first issue begins with something more substantial than allegations exchanged between two parents.

It involves a licensed mental-health professional.

Exhibit 5 of the complaint concerns counseling records provided to Chelcie Stewart in January 2024.

According to the exhibit, those records covered counseling sessions occurring between March and September 2023.

The exhibit states that the licensed mental-health provider who produced those records subsequently filed a formal child-abuse report concerning the children’s mother.

According to the complaint, that provider was later terminated as the child’s counselor.

More significantly, the exhibit describes this as one of three separate mandated reports made between late 2023 and early 2024.

The counseling information described emotional dysregulation, difficulty processing emotions, ongoing family stress and other concerns that the complaint argues warranted serious consideration by child-protection authorities.

But the central allegation involving Stewart is not simply that she received concerning information.

It concerns what allegedly happened afterward.

The complaint states:

“There is no indication that Chelcie Stewart investigated the concerns raised in the notes, followed up with the counselor, or documented any action whatsoever.”

That statement represents an allegation contained within the complaint. It is not a finding by the licensing board.

But it creates a question that should be answerable through government records:

After Stewart received the counseling information and became aware of the provider’s concerns, what investigative steps did Maine OCFS actually take?

If the concerns were investigated, records should help establish what occurred.

If the counselor was contacted, that should be verifiable.

If OCFS assessed the information and determined that intervention was unnecessary, there should presumably be documentation explaining that determination.

And if meaningful follow-up did not occur, that raises a different set of questions for professional regulators.

(Exhibit 5 from the Chelcie Stewart licensing complaint, dated January 22, 2024, summarizing counseling records provided to the Maine OCFS caseworker. The exhibit states that the licensed mental-health provider later filed a child-abuse report concerning Marisol Guerrero and was subsequently terminated as the children’s counselor. The complaint describes this as one of three mandated reports made between late 2023 and early 2024 and alleges there was no documented indication Stewart investigated the concerns, followed up with the counselor, or recorded responsive action.)

This issue matters because child-protection decisions should not depend exclusively upon conflicting claims between parents.

Independent professional evidence matters.

Clinical documentation matters.

Mandated reports matter.

When multiple sources raise concerns involving children, one of the most basic accountability questions is what child-protection authorities did with that information.

---

2. Why Did Chelcie Stewart Write, “We Are Not Having This Conversation on Email/Text”?

The second issue is particularly noteworthy because it includes a statement attributed directly to Stewart in the underlying email correspondence.

During an April 2024 exchange concerning the CPS investigation, I repeatedly sought written answers.

Stewart responded:

“Again, We’d be happy to discuss all together on zoom like we said a couple times now. We are not having this conversation on email/text.”

That statement should be considered carefully and in context.

Standing alone, it does not establish that Stewart was attempting to conceal misconduct or intentionally avoid creating a written record.

There can be legitimate reasons for a caseworker to prefer a meeting or telephone conversation when addressing complicated or sensitive matters.

The broader chronology, however, makes the exchange relevant.

According to Exhibit 17, I was seeking answers regarding abuse reports, the status of the investigation, requests for a safety plan and what CPS was actually doing with information I had submitted.

The exhibit alleges that Stewart and her supervisor repeatedly sought to move those discussions to Zoom or telephone conversations rather than address the substantive questions through written correspondence.

At the same time, the exhibit raises another issue.

While I was requesting investigation updates, transparency and a safety plan concerning allegations I had reported, the complaint states that attention was being directed toward obtaining my medical releases.

That contrast is one of the issues I am asking regulators to examine.

(Exhibit 17 from the Chelcie Stewart licensing complaint, covering April 1–19, 2024, and summarizing communications between Ryan Michaels, Chelcie Stewart, Christina Codere and Maine OCFS leadership. The exhibit includes Stewart’s statement, “We are not having this conversation on email/text.” It also summarizes requests for a safety plan and investigation updates while alleging that attention was instead directed toward obtaining Ryan’s medical releases.)

The relevant question is therefore larger than whether Stewart was permitted to prefer Zoom.

It is:

Regardless of the communication method, were the underlying child-safety concerns actually investigated and answered?

If they were, the agency’s records should demonstrate that.

If they were not, Stewart’s written statement takes on greater significance when considered alongside the broader chronology documented in the complaint.

---

3. How Did the Maine CPS Case Reach a Jeopardy Proceeding?

The third exhibit concerns one of the most consequential developments documented in the complaint.

By June 2024, the situation had progressed into a Jeopardy proceeding.

Exhibit 19 shows Stewart included in official communications involving the Assistant Attorney General, attorneys and court personnel as preparations surrounding that proceeding continued.

Meanwhile, according to the exhibit, I was requesting a meeting to address what I believed were inaccuracies in the substantiation findings against me.

The complaint states:

“There is no indication Chelcie responded or advocated for a reassessment—despite having played a role in initiating the Jeopardy process.”

Again, that is an allegation contained within the complaint—not an adjudicated finding.

But the sequence of events matters.

Before this point, I allege that CPS had received counseling information, reports from professionals, disclosures concerning the children and extensive written information about conditions I believed warranted intervention.

I had repeatedly requested assistance.

I had repeatedly requested a safety plan.

I had repeatedly asked what CPS was doing with the information being provided.

Yet by June, I was the parent facing a proceeding capable of substantially affecting my relationship with my children.

Another issue arose following the June 14 proceeding.

According to my contemporaneous written account, comments made by the judge led me to believe that the underlying dispute appeared more like a “family matter” than a protective-custody case.

I subsequently wrote:

“Isn’t this indicating that ‘jeopardy’ is being used by CPS as a means to enforce parental rights and responsibilities?”

That was my interpretation of what occurred.

It should not be represented as a judicial finding that CPS improperly initiated the proceeding.

Nevertheless, the surrounding circumstances raise legitimate questions about how the case developed.

(Exhibit 19 from the Chelcie Stewart licensing complaint, covering June 10–14, 2024, concerning a Maine child-protection Jeopardy proceeding involving CPS, the Assistant Attorney General, attorneys and court staff. The exhibit states that Stewart was included in official communications surrounding the case while Ryan sought review of what he believed were inaccurate substantiation findings. It also summarizes Ryan’s contemporaneous account that comments from the judge suggested the dispute appeared more like a “family matter” than a protective-custody case, leading Ryan to question how the Jeopardy process was being used.)

The central question is significant:

How did the case progress from a parent repeatedly providing CPS with allegations and supporting information concerning his children’s welfare to that parent facing state intervention affecting his own parental relationship?

Answering that responsibly requires more than one email or one person’s recollection.

It requires examination of the complete child-protection record.

What did Stewart document?

Which witnesses were interviewed?

Which were not?

Which allegations were corroborated?

Which were rejected?

What information was provided to attorneys and the court?

Was contradictory information documented and considered?

And were allegations concerning both parents evaluated using comparable investigative standards?

Those are precisely the types of questions that warrant examination of the complete record rather than isolated excerpts.

---

4. What Did Stewart Do After Being Copied on Allegations About Statements Made to Police?

The fourth exhibit demonstrates why the allegations involving Stewart extend beyond the events of the original 2024 child-protection investigation.

Exhibit 33 concerns events following a March 11, 2025 encounter at the Biddeford DHHS office in Maine.

The exhibit alleges that another OCFS official, Amy Cilley, made statements to law enforcement characterizing me as:

• “Out of touch with reality”
• Possibly not truly disabled
• A potential disruption or threat

An important distinction must be made here:

Those alleged statements are attributed to Cilley, not Stewart.

I subsequently challenged those representations in writing.

According to the exhibit, I referenced VA documentation, body-camera footage, audio recordings and statements from DHHS personnel that I believed contradicted the characterization provided to police.

I requested specific explanations concerning the basis for the statements.

What evidence supported the characterization that I was unstable?

Why was uncertainty allegedly expressed regarding my documented disability?

Why did the account allegedly provided to police differ from the accounts of people who interacted with me?

Stewart’s relevance to this portion of the complaint arises afterward.

She was copied on the July 15 and July 17 communications.

The complaint alleges that Stewart did not respond, acknowledge the allegations or indicate that she had taken action after receiving them.

(Exhibit 33 from the Chelcie Stewart licensing complaint, dated July 15–17, 2025, concerning a formal request for clarification about statements allegedly made to police during the March 11, 2025 Biddeford DHHS no-trespass incident. The exhibit attributes statements including “out of touch with reality,” uncertainty regarding disability status and portraying Ryan as a possible disruption or threat to Amy Cilley—not Stewart. The exhibit states that Stewart was copied on two subsequent emails seeking clarification and alleges that no response or acknowledgment from Stewart was documented.)

By this point, the issue extended beyond another disputed allegation concerning a family.

Stewart had been copied on written allegations asserting that another official within the agency had provided inaccurate or misleading information about a citizen to law enforcement.

That creates another question for professional review:

What obligation, if any, did Stewart have after receiving those allegations, and what action did she take?

That question should ultimately be answered through professional standards, agency policy and evidence—not speculation.

---

These Four Exhibits Are Only a Small Part of the 458-Page Chelcie Stewart Complaint

The scale of the underlying record bears repeating.

This article does not present the complete complaint against Chelcie Stewart.

The complaint package totals 458 pages.

The four examples discussed here represent a deliberately limited cross-section of that substantially larger record.

The complete filing contains additional exhibits, email chains, communications, allegations and supporting documentation spanning a much broader chronology.

Readers should therefore not interpret these four examples as the totality of the allegations involving Stewart.

They provide a manageable window into several of the central issues being raised ahead of the licensing proceeding.

That distinction is important for another reason.

Four screenshots should not determine the outcome of a professional licensing matter.

Neither should a 458-page complaint simply be accepted as true because of its length.

The allegations should be tested against the underlying records.

Stewart’s response should be considered.

Agency documentation should be examined.

Conflicting evidence should be addressed.

And licensing authorities should determine what the record actually supports.

That is what meaningful accountability requires.

---

The Central Question in the Chelcie Stewart Licensing Complaint

The four examples examined here span roughly eighteen months and involve very different circumstances:

• counseling records and a mandated report;
• requests for child-safety intervention and written answers;
• a Maine child-protection Jeopardy proceeding; and
• later allegations involving statements another OCFS official allegedly made to police.

Yet they repeatedly return to one central question:

What happened to information after it reached Chelcie Stewart?

That is one of the principal themes underlying my complaint.

I am not asking readers to determine Stewart’s professional culpability based upon four screenshots.

I am asking readers to understand why a 458-page evidentiary filing exists and why I believe its contents warrant independent examination.

There may be agency records I have not seen.

There may be explanations Stewart or Maine OCFS believes justify decisions described in my complaint.

There may be evidence presented during the licensing process that contradicts or weakens some of my allegations.

That evidence deserves consideration as well.

Accountability means following the evidence wherever it leads.

But accountability also requires serious allegations involving government authority to receive meaningful scrutiny.

Maine child-protection employees possess extraordinary responsibilities. Their work can influence investigations, court proceedings, family relationships and decisions carrying profound consequences for parents and children.

With that authority comes a legitimate public interest in understanding how information was evaluated, how decisions were made and whether professional standards were followed.

---

What Happens Next in the Chelcie Stewart Licensing Matter?

This article represents one installment in my promised five-part series examining Maine OCFS and the licensing complaints ahead of the upcoming proceedings.

These four exhibits should be understood for exactly what they are:

Four selections from a 458-page evidentiary record.

They do not prove every allegation.

They do not replace the complete record.

They do not establish what the licensing authorities should ultimately find.

But they demonstrate why significant questions have been raised.

Did Stewart appropriately address information supplied by professionals?

What happened to the reports and disclosures provided to Maine CPS?

Were requests concerning child safety meaningfully investigated?

What was Stewart’s actual role in the Jeopardy proceeding?

Were comparable standards applied when evaluating competing allegations?

And when Stewart was later copied on allegations concerning another OCFS official’s representations to law enforcement, what—if anything—did she do with that information?

Those questions extend far beyond the four images published here.

They arise from a filing totaling 458 pages.

The upcoming licensing process provides an opportunity for those allegations to be examined against Stewart’s response and the complete available record.

Until findings are made, I will continue distinguishing between documented communications, allegations contained within the complaint, my interpretation of events and conclusions actually reached by an independent authority.

At the same time, I will continue publishing portions of the documentary record that explain why these complaints were brought.

The public does not need to prejudge the outcome to have an interest in the evidence.

Transparency begins by allowing people to understand why these questions are being asked.