A document-by-document analysis compares five professional licensing complaints against Maine OCFS social workers with the Board’s August 14, 2026 public summary and deliberations—revealing significant unanswered questions about the evidence, the “page 185” remark, the disputed ROI, and whether individualized allegations were actually addressed.

The Maine Mirror | Deep Dive Analysis | August 14, 2026

I. Executive finding

The most significant issue revealed by comparing the underlying complaint records with the Board’s public discussion is not simply that the Board disagreed with the complainant.

It is that the Board’s articulated discussion bears only a limited relationship to several of the central, individualized allegations contained in the five complaints.

The complaints concerned five separately licensed social workers:

2025-SOC-20907 — Christina Codere
2025-SOC-20908 — Amy Cilley
2025-SOC-20909 — Bobbi Johnson
2025-SOC-20910 — Chelcie Stewart
2025-SOC-20911 — Stephanie Gaddar

Yet the complaints were publicly summarized collectively as essentially one dispute arising from one complainant’s OCFS involvement. The summary described allegations of coercion, avoidance of accountability, retaliation, mandated-reporting failures, limited access to children, concerns regarding an ex-spouse, OCFS investigations, the licensees’ description of agency policies, and the agency’s substantiation of emotional-abuse allegations against the complainant.

The Board then immediately discussed all five together.

Members stated:

“I did not see evidence of a violation at all.”

and:

“OCFS followed their processes.”

Another member agreed that OCFS’s “policies and procedures” had been outlined and stated that they were followed. The discussion then characterized these matters as the kind of “contentious child protective actions or divorce actions or custody actions” where emotions run high and people become angry.

A member then stated that he reviews these matters carefully, observed that “we didn’t get to the response until page 185,” said “I read it all,” and concluded that he did not see a Code of Ethics violation.

The Board then proceeded to separate dismissal motions for the five complaint numbers.

The difficulty is that several major allegations do not turn on whether OCFS had policies, whether OCFS investigated the children’s safety, whether the complainant was angry, whether there was a contentious custody dispute, or even whether OCFS ultimately substantiated allegations against the complainant.

Some concern objectively narrower questions.

For example:

Did Amy Cilley make particular factual representations to law enforcement, and did contemporaneous recordings or records contradict those representations?

Did Stephanie Gaddar allow a finding that the complainant failed to return an ROI to remain in the record despite documentation showing that her subordinate had promised to mail the ROI and the complainant said he never received it?

Did Chelcie Stewart receive specific communications requesting intervention or safety planning, and what did she do in response?

Was Bobbi Johnson repeatedly placed on notice of specific allegations as OCFS leadership, and what supervisory action, if any, followed?

Did Christina Codere engage in or fail to address the specific communications, appeal-related conduct, nonresponses, and other conduct alleged against her?

Those questions cannot necessarily be resolved merely by determining that “OCFS followed its processes.”

That is the central disconnect.

---

II. The Board summary substantially compressed five different professional-conduct theories into one generalized OCFS/custody narrative

The public summary acknowledged that the complaints alleged violations of ethical standards, coercive behavior, avoidance of accountability, retaliation, and neglect of mandated-reporting responsibilities.

That portion does correlate with the complaints at a very high level.

But the summary immediately reframed the evidentiary context around two subjects:

1. the complainant’s limited access to his children and concerns about their mother’s care; and
2. OCFS’s investigation and its substantiation of allegations against the complainant.

That description captures background context, but it does not adequately describe several of the alleged acts of professional misconduct themselves.

That distinction matters.

A licensing complaint arising during a contentious child-welfare matter is not necessarily a complaint about the outcome of the child-welfare matter.

The Gaddar complaint illustrates this particularly clearly.

---

III. 2025-SOC-20911 — Stephanie Gaddar: perhaps the clearest mismatch

This may be the strongest example because the complaint was unusually narrow.

What was actually alleged

The Gaddar complaint explicitly states:

“This complaint centers on one specific incident”

involving Gaddar’s alleged failure to intervene when the complainant was blamed for failing to return an ROI that he says was never sent to him by a former OCFS employee whom Gaddar supervised.

The alleged chronology was specific.

Allie Harms allegedly told the complainant on July 2 that she would mail an ROI and return envelope. The complainant says he waited for it. Shortly thereafter, during an FTM attended by Gaddar, an already-documented finding was discussed stating that the complainant had “failed to provide a release of information.”

According to the complaint, the complainant objected during that meeting because the promised form had never arrived. Only then, according to the complaint, did Gaddar disclose that Harms was no longer employed by OCFS. The allegation was therefore not simply, “OCFS wanted an ROI and I disagreed.”

The allegation was:

OCFS blamed the parent for failing to return a document that an OCFS employee had promised to send him, and the supervising LCSW allegedly failed to correct that factual attribution after the problem was brought to her attention.

The supporting exhibit was also unusually concrete.

The complaint says Harms’ July 2 communication stated that she was mailing the ROI and return envelope; the complainant responded July 3 that he would complete it once received; and a July 25 communication stated that it never arrived and that he had nevertheless been accused of failing to submit it.

The ethical theories expressly presented included negligent supervision, failure to correct a known error, allowing false information to affect a client, and failure to maintain an accurate case record.

What the Board publicly addressed

Nothing in the quoted public summary identifies:

Allie Harms.

The promise to mail the ROI.

The failure of the ROI to arrive.

The allegation that the complainant was nevertheless blamed for failing to return it.

The allegation that Gaddar learned of the discrepancy and failed to correct the record.

The employee transition.

The supervisory-responsibility theory.

The documentary email chain corroborating the promise to mail the ROI.

Instead, 20911 was folded into the collective description of a complainant alleging misconduct by “several caseworkers,” followed by discussion of OCFS investigations, child safety, substantiation against the complainant, and agency policies.

That is a weak substantive correlation with the actual 20911 theory.

Why “OCFS followed its procedures” does not answer the ROI allegation

Suppose, solely for analysis, that every OCFS policy cited by the licensees was legitimate.

That still does not answer:

Was the ROI actually mailed?

Was the complainant told it would be mailed?

Was he accused of failing to return it before receiving it?

Did Gaddar know that her subordinate had departed?

After learning of the discrepancy, did Gaddar correct the record?

Those are primarily factual accuracy and supervisory-conduct questions, not disagreements about whether OCFS was entitled to request an ROI.

This distinction is critical.

The complaint did not principally contend:

OCFS violated my rights by asking for an ROI.

It contended:

OCFS blamed me for failing to return an ROI that its own worker had promised to send but allegedly never sent, and her supervisor failed to correct that attribution after being confronted with the problem.

The Board’s generalized conclusion that procedures were followed does not publicly explain how that allegation was resolved.

---

IV. 2025-SOC-20908 — Amy Cilley: documentary contradiction versus generalized process reasoning

The Amy Cilley allegations were materially different again.

One of the central allegations concerned statements attributed to Cilley during the March 11, 2025 interaction with law enforcement.

The supporting materials identify specific disputed representations, including that the complainant:

“refused to leave,”

was “pretty escalated,”

called approximately “a hundred times a day,”

was “not in touch with reality,”

and had engaged in threatening behavior through social-media content.

The complaint asserted that contemporaneous video, call records, the social-media post itself, and/or recorded communications contradicted those characterizations.

It also alleged that references to the complainant’s disability were used to characterize him as mentally unstable.

Again, whether those allegations ultimately warranted discipline is a separate question.

The important analytical point is this:

The truth or falsity of a specific statement made by a licensed social worker to a police officer is not resolved merely by establishing that OCFS has policies and procedures governing investigations.

If a complaint says:

Person A told police X.

and the evidence allegedly shows:

X was objectively false or materially misleading,

the responsive inquiry should ordinarily concern:

What exactly was said?

What did the speaker know when it was said?

What do the recordings show?

Were the statements materially accurate?

If inaccurate, were they negligent, reckless, intentional, immaterial, or professionally permissible?

Yet the public deliberation contains no apparent discussion of those evidentiary questions.

Instead:

“OCFS followed their processes.”

and:

“the policies and procedures of OCFS were clearly outlined” and “they followed those.”

That reasoning addresses institutional procedure.

The Cilley allegation addresses, among other things, individual truthfulness and professional communication to law enforcement.

Those are not synonymous.

---

V. 2025-SOC-20909 — Bobbi Johnson: supervisory notice and inaction largely disappeared from the summary

The Bobbi Johnson complaint was also individualized.

Its supporting-document list alone shows the theory being advanced. The exhibits included allegations that Johnson ignored:

an Easter email plea;

an escalation regarding CPS misconduct;

information regarding injuries and abuse;

a February 2025 plea to OCFS leadership;

requests for school-based reunification support;

a birthday-message request;

reports concerning alleged false police statements;

a notarized statement;

certified evidence;

and subsequent requests for leadership intervention.

Whatever one thinks about the merits of each communication, the licensing theory was substantially one of supervisory notice and failure to respond/intervene.

That requires a different analysis from frontline casework.

The logical questions are:

Was Johnson actually copied or directly notified?

What information did she receive?

Was she professionally responsible for taking some action?

Did she delegate it?

Did she investigate it?

Was there an obligation to respond personally?

Were subordinate actions reviewed?

Was any failure to act an ethical violation rather than simply an administrative choice?

The Board could reasonably have answered those questions against the complainant.

But the public discussion doesn’t reveal those answers.

Instead, Johnson’s complaint was absorbed into the same generalized statement that the licensees described OCFS policy and that the agency investigated allegations involving the children.

That does not necessarily resolve the leadership question.

An agency could conceivably have valid written procedures while a supervisor fails to act appropriately.

Indeed, if the complaint itself alleges failures to follow policy, then pointing to the existence of the policy cannot logically resolve the allegation.

---

VI. 2025-SOC-20910 — Chelcie Stewart: “they followed procedure” versus allegations that procedure was not followed

This is another significant tension.

The Stewart materials alleged repeated disclosures and requests for intervention.

For example, the complaint materials describe April 8 and April 11 communications reporting alleged disclosures by the children, reminding OCFS about recordings and information from YCare personnel, expressly requesting a safety plan, and then following up after more than 72 hours without a response.

The complaint expressly framed Stewart’s alleged nonresponse as inconsistent with the very OCFS procedures and professional duties supposedly applicable to such disclosures.

This creates a direct analytical problem with the Board’s reasoning.

The Board essentially said:

OCFS had procedures.

The procedures were clearly outlined.

They followed them.

But the complaint alleged:

Here are specific communications and specific instances in which the procedures were not followed.

Therefore, merely identifying the existence of OCFS policy cannot logically rebut the complaint.

To resolve the conflict, one would need to compare:

required procedure → documented event → licensee’s action → evidence of compliance/noncompliance.

The public discussion does not appear to do that.

There is no publicly articulated finding such as:

Stewart received the April 8 request and appropriately responded through X mechanism.

or:

No safety plan was required because condition Y was absent.

or:

Stewart referred the information to another worker on date Z, satisfying her professional obligation.

or:

The complainant’s characterization that there was no response is contradicted by document X.

Any of those could constitute substantive reasoning.

But “the procedures were clearly outlined” is not itself evidence that the procedures were followed.

That is one of the strongest logical deficiencies in the deliberation.

---

VII. 2025-SOC-20907 — Christina Codere: individualized allegations similarly collapsed

The Codere complaint contained several categories of allegations, including alleged nonresponsiveness, handling of communications, appeal-related conduct, and alleged retaliatory or boundary-related conduct.

One exhibit, for example, concerned an October 18, 2024 attempt to address an appeal, subsequent unanswered requests regarding the administrative hearing, and later allegations concerning Codere and Stewart viewing social-media content despite allegedly failing to respond to official communications.

Again, those allegations might or might not establish an ethical violation.

But the analytical questions are individualized:

What authority did Codere have concerning the appeal?

Was the instruction to mail it required by policy?

Was another submission method actually available?

Did Codere receive the later communications?

Was she responsible for responding?

What explains the alleged social-media viewing?

Was that activity professional, incidental, authorized, irrelevant, or a boundary problem?

The public discussion does not disclose consideration of those questions.

Instead, the five complaints are discussed through the generalized lens of contentious CPS/custody litigation.

---

VIII. The “page 185” statement creates a separate record-review ambiguity

This deserves its own section because it concerns what record was actually being discussed.

A Board member said:

“I noted that we didn’t get to the response until page 185, so there’s a lot of reading in this case, and I read it all.”

There are several important things about this statement.

First, he said:

“this case.”

He did not say:

“all five cases.”

He did not say:

“all five complaint records.”

He did not say:

“I read the complete records for 20907 through 20911.”

That doesn’t prove he didn’t read them. But it creates ambiguity.

Second, the complaints are indisputably separate docketed matters. The official August 14 agenda lists 20907, 20908, 20909, 20910, and 20911 as five separate complaint presentations.

Yet the substantive discussion was conducted collectively.

Third, as we established earlier, the raw complaint PDFs do not cleanly correspond to his page-185 reference. That strongly suggests he may have been looking at a Board-assembled case packet with different pagination.

That creates an objectively answerable records question:

Which docket’s Board packet had the licensee response beginning on page 185?

Once that is identified, the statement “I read it all” can be properly contextualized.

If page 185 corresponds to one complaint packet, then “I read it all” most naturally refers to that packet.

That would still not prove he failed to read the other four.

But it would mean his statement cannot fairly be cited as affirmative evidence that he read all five.

This distinction is important and should be maintained.

---

IX. The collective summary versus five individual licensees

Another structural issue emerges from the language used in the summary itself.

The presenter said:

“this … describes the events of all of the following cases”

and identified 20908 through 20911 as related events being described in one summary.

That raises a fundamental licensing-review question:

To what extent can one collective factual summary adequately present five separate professional-conduct complaints against five separately licensed individuals occupying different roles?

The problem is not consolidation by itself.

Administrative bodies often consolidate related matters for efficiency.

The problem arises when consolidation erases the individualized conduct that determines professional responsibility.

For licensing purposes:

Amy Cilley is not Bobbi Johnson.

Bobbi Johnson is not Chelcie Stewart.

Chelcie Stewart is not Stephanie Gaddar.

Gaddar’s alleged responsibility for supervising Allie Harms has little to do with whether Cilley accurately communicated with police.

Johnson’s alleged leadership inaction presents a different ethical question from Stewart’s alleged direct caseworker conduct.

The fact that all five matters arose from the same broader OCFS history doesn’t transform them into the same professional-conduct allegation.

---

X. The Board appears to have analyzed the institutional dispute more than the individual professional conduct

This is probably the central thesis.

The complaints asked, essentially:

Did these individual licensed social workers engage in conduct inconsistent with professional obligations?

The Board’s public deliberation largely answered:

Was OCFS acting within its child-protective processes in a difficult and contentious family matter?

Those questions overlap.

But they are not identical.

That is especially apparent in the statement characterizing these matters as:

“contentious child protective actions or divorce actions or custody actions”

where “emotions run high” and “people are very angry.”

That characterization may accurately describe the broader environment.

But it does not resolve documentary allegations.

A complainant can be angry and a social worker can make an inaccurate statement.

A custody matter can be contentious and a supervisor can fail to correct an inaccurate record.

OCFS can substantiate allegations against a parent and a licensee can independently violate a professional standard.

OCFS can possess valid policies and an individual employee can fail to follow them.

Those propositions are not mutually exclusive.

That is why the emphasis on the emotional and contentious nature of the underlying family dispute has limited probative value in determining whether the specific licensing allegations were substantiated.

---

XI. The substantiation against the complainant is not logically dispositive of the complaints

The summary specifically told the Board that OCFS had substantiated high-severity emotional abuse allegations against the complainant.

That may be relevant context.

But analytically it risks becoming a credibility shortcut if not carefully separated from the individual allegations.

Even assuming the substantiation was entirely correct, it does not establish that:

Cilley’s statements to police were accurate.

Gaddar properly supervised Harms.

The ROI was actually mailed.

Gaddar corrected the allegedly inaccurate ROI finding.

Stewart responded appropriately to each communication.

Johnson fulfilled whatever supervisory obligations applied to her.

Codere handled each communication and professional interaction ethically.

Those issues must stand or fall on their own evidence.

In other words:

“OCFS substantiated Ryan” is not a substantive rebuttal to “Amy said X to police and recording Y contradicts X.”

Nor is it a rebuttal to:

“Harms promised to mail an ROI, it allegedly wasn’t mailed, Ryan was blamed for not returning it, and Gaddar allegedly failed to correct that attribution.”

This distinction should be emphasized heavily.

---

XII. Evidence-versus-conclusion problem

Another pattern appears in the deliberation.

The complaints supplied documentary material.

The Board discussion supplied conclusions:

“I did not see evidence of a violation at all.”

“OCFS followed their processes.”

“they followed those.”

“I didn’t see [a Code violation].”

What is largely absent from the public discussion is the intermediate analytical step:

Evidence A says X.

Licensee says Y.

Exhibit B corroborates/contradicts X.

Policy C required D.

Licensee performed E.

Therefore D was or was not satisfied.

That is the reasoning that would allow an outside observer to understand why the evidence failed to establish a violation.

Instead, the public record jumps substantially from:

large documentary record

to:

general summary

to:

generalized discussion of difficult custody/CPS cases

to:

no violation

to:

five individual dismissal votes.

That doesn’t establish that no deeper review occurred privately or before the meeting.

But it means the public deliberation itself does not demonstrate that analysis.

That wording is both accurate and important.

---

XIII. The Board’s statement that procedure “was definitely followed” is particularly difficult to reconcile with the nature of the allegations

This may be one of the strongest quotations to examine.

The transcript contains overlapping speech, so caution is necessary, but the discussion includes statements to the effect that OCFS’s policies were clearly outlined, “they followed those,” and that procedure “was definitely followed.”

But several complaints specifically alleged failures to follow procedures.

That means the central evidentiary question should have been:

Which evidence demonstrates compliance with the disputed procedure?

For Gaddar:

Where is the evidence that the ROI was sent?

If it was not sent, what procedure permitted recording the complainant’s failure to return it?

If the finding was erroneous, was it corrected?

For Stewart:

What evidence demonstrates an appropriate response to the documented requests for a safety plan?

For Cilley:

What procedure governs factual representations to law enforcement, and did the evidence demonstrate that the statements were accurate?

For Johnson:

What supervisory procedure applied after repeated escalations to leadership, and what evidence demonstrates that it was followed?

Merely being shown a written policy establishes what should happen.

It does not establish what did happen.

That is a fundamental evidentiary distinction.

---

XIV. The ROI issue exposes that distinction almost perfectly

The ROI allegation can be reduced to a simple chain:

Procedure: OCFS requests ROI.

Worker: says she will mail ROI.

Complainant: says he will return it when received.

Alleged event: ROI never arrives.

OCFS finding: complainant failed to provide ROI.

Supervisor: allegedly learns of discrepancy.

Complaint: supervisor allegedly fails to correct finding.

The supporting documentation says Harms told the complainant she would mail the ROI and return envelope and that he responded that he would complete it upon receipt.

Therefore:

The existence of an OCFS policy requiring an ROI actually strengthens the need to determine whether OCFS executed its own part of the procedure.

It does not answer the complaint.

If the Board concluded that Gaddar had no ethical responsibility to correct the record, that could be a substantive conclusion.

If it concluded the record had already been corrected, that could be substantive.

If it concluded Harms actually mailed the ROI, that could be substantive.

If it concluded Gaddar was not Harms’ responsible supervisor, that could be substantive.

If it concluded the inaccurate notation was immaterial to any professional standard, that could be substantive.

But none of those reasons appears in the public discussion we’ve reviewed.

That is the issue.

---

XV. What we can prove versus what we should not claim

For credibility, this analysis should be disciplined.

The records support saying:

The five complaints contained materially different individualized allegations.

The Board publicly summarized them collectively.

The Board’s discussion focused heavily on OCFS process, difficult child-protection/custody matters, anger/emotion, and whether a Code violation was apparent.

The public discussion does not specifically address several major individualized allegations.

The Gaddar ROI allegation is particularly absent from the summary/discussion despite being the central issue in that complaint.

The Cilley law-enforcement-statement allegations are not specifically analyzed in the public discussion.

The Board’s reasoning that procedures existed/were followed does not, standing alone, answer allegations that particular procedures were not followed.

The “page 185” statement is ambiguous as to which complaint record was being referenced.

The public record therefore leaves unanswered questions about the extent to which each separate complaint and its evidence was individually evaluated.

The records do not currently prove:

That Board members did not read the complaints.

That they intentionally ignored evidence.

That the Board illegally predetermined the result.

That the Complaint Officer deliberately misrepresented the complaints.

That the Board’s dismissals were legally invalid.

That the Board member who said “I read it all” read only one complaint.

Those would require additional evidence.

That distinction actually makes the analysis stronger.

---

XVI. The strongest conclusion

I would ultimately frame the finding this way:

The principal concern revealed by the August 14, 2026 proceeding is not merely disagreement with the Board’s five dismissal decisions. It is the apparent mismatch between the individualized, documentary allegations submitted in five separate licensing complaints and the generalized institutional framework through which those complaints were publicly summarized and discussed.

The complaints raised discrete questions concerning alleged false statements to law enforcement, supervisory failures, failure to correct allegedly inaccurate records, ignored communications, alleged noncompliance with safety-planning or reporting obligations, retaliation, professional boundaries, and—in the Gaddar matter—a particularly concrete dispute over an ROI that an OCFS employee allegedly promised to mail but that the complainant says was never received before he was blamed for failing to return it.

The Board’s public deliberation does not show those allegations being separately tested against the evidence. Instead, the discussion largely focused on the existence of OCFS procedures, the conclusion that those procedures were followed, the contentious nature of child-protection and custody matters, the emotional intensity of such disputes, and the agency’s adverse substantiation against the complainant.

Those considerations may provide context, but they do not necessarily resolve the professional-conduct questions actually presented. An agency may have valid procedures while an employee fails to follow them. A parent may be involved in contentious litigation while a social worker nevertheless makes an inaccurate statement. A substantiation against a complainant does not establish that every subsequent action by every licensed professional was ethically proper. And the existence of an ROI procedure does not establish that an ROI promised by an employee was actually sent or that it was professionally appropriate to attribute its non-return to the recipient if it was not.

Accordingly, the public record does not establish that the Board failed to review the evidence; however, it also does not demonstrate how several of the central individualized allegations were analyzed, reconciled with contrary evidence, or determined not to constitute professional misconduct. The discrepancy warrants clarification through the underlying Board packets, Complaint Officer materials, investigative records, member review materials if public, and identification of the particular case referenced by the statement that the licensee’s response did not begin until page 185.

Support Independent Journalism — And Help Keep the Record Alive

If you’ve followed this story this far, you already understand why independent journalism matters.

Accountability rarely begins with a dramatic revelation. More often, it begins with someone noticing that something doesn’t make sense—and refusing to stop asking respectful, evidence-based questions.

It begins with documents. Public meetings. Records requests. Difficult questions. Careful reporting. And ordinary people willing to pay attention when it would be easier to look away.

For anyone following this story because you have something deeply personal on the line, I also want you to hear this:

Do not mistake a disappointing outcome for the end of the story.

When institutions appear unresponsive, when transparency feels impossible to obtain, or when accountability seems painfully out of reach, discouragement is understandable. But meaningful change has rarely happened because one person had all the power. It happens when people become informed, compare experiences, preserve evidence, ask better questions, and refuse to let important issues disappear simply because they are uncomfortable.

You are not alone.

The Maine Mirror will continue following the evidence wherever it leads—including when that evidence challenges our own assumptions. Independent journalism only works when the commitment is to the record, not a predetermined conclusion.

If you believe Maine deserves transparent government, meaningful oversight, accountable institutions, and systems worthy of the public’s trust, subscribe below for free.

There is no cost to stand with this work.

Subscribe. Read. Share these investigations. Discuss the documents. Engage respectfully online. Send the reporting to someone who needs to see it.

Every new reader makes the record harder to ignore.

Every share brings another set of eyes to the evidence.

Every informed conversation moves us a little closer to the transparency, accountability, and justice our communities deserve.

One person asking questions can be dismissed. Thousands asking informed questions become a conversation government cannot afford to ignore.

The work continues.

And we continue it together.

Here is the official complaint summary as read aloud during the Board meeting, transcribed from the meeting record. I’ve kept it as close to the spoken wording as possible:

“I’m noting that this describes the events of all of the following cases on the agenda submitted by the same complainant. Those are cases ending in 20908, 20909, 20910, and 20911. So all related events that I’ll be describing in this summary.

The complainant is filing a complaint against several caseworkers who were assigned to their case from the Office of Child & Family Services, known as OCFS.

The complainant alleges that the licensees violated multiple ethical standards, conducted coercive behavior, avoided accountability, took retaliatory actions, and neglected mandated reporting duties in this complainant’s case with OCFS.

The complainant asserts these claims through documentation of several communications between themselves, the licensees, and other OCFS staff provided with the complaint.

Communication involves the complainant’s limited access to their children as well as their concern of their children being in the care of their ex-spouse.

In their response, the licensees describe the context of the complainant’s OCFS case and the department’s investigation into reports the complainant made about their ex-spouse abusing their children.

They state that after investigating the safety of the children, they did not find evidence of danger to the children in the ex-spouse’s care, but they substantiated allegations of high-severity emotional abuse against the complainant.

The licensees also describe details of the department’s policies on investigations, documentation, and safety plan requests relating to the complainant’s OCFS case.

I have a note that the complaint officer had a recommendation of no violation.

And with that summary, I turn it back to the Board.”

Now Read the Complaints for Yourself

Below, you will find each of the five licensing complaints in its entirety, including the allegations, supporting documentation, correspondence, exhibits, and responses contained within the records available for review.

Don’t take The Maine Mirror’s word for what these complaints contain.

Read them yourself.

Open any one of the five complaints. Pick an allegation. Follow the supporting documentation. Read the emails. Examine the timelines. Look at the responses. Or go further and work through the hundreds of pages that were placed before the licensing process.

Then come back and read the summary above—the summary presented publicly before the Board deliberated and voted to dismiss these complaints.

Compare the two.

Ask yourself:

Does that summary adequately represent what was actually submitted?

Does it capture the specific allegations against each individual licensee?

Does it meaningfully convey the documentary evidence supporting those allegations?

Does it distinguish between five different licensed professionals, their different roles, and the different conduct alleged against each of them?

And after reviewing the underlying record yourself, does the Board’s publicly stated reasoning adequately explain why each complaint warranted dismissal?

You don’t have to agree with me.

In fact, I don’t want you to simply take my conclusion as your own.

The purpose of publishing these records is to give the public something far more valuable than another person’s interpretation: the opportunity to examine the source material and reach an informed conclusion for themselves.

The documents are below.

The Board’s summary is above.

You be the judge.