Introduction to the Attached Administrative Record
 

The document attached below is an official email record that became relevant during my repeated efforts to obtain clarity, accountability, and transparency from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS).
 

Over an extended period of time, I raised questions regarding appeal rights, due process, and the handling of OCFS child abuse investigation appeals. In response, I was informed on the record that all OCFS child abuse appeals statewide had been placed on hold in order to prioritize MaineCare-related matters.
 

This acknowledgment was significant for several reasons:

• It applied broadly to all families, not a single case

• It directly affected access to appeal timelines and review

• It was never disclosed to families impacted by the decision

• No public notice, policy memorandum, or explanation was issued
   

When I sought clarification regarding this decision—including its scope, duration, legal authority, and impact on families—I did not receive substantive answers. Follow-up questions requesting transparency were avoided or left unanswered.

 

Why MaineCare and Medicare Are Relevant
 

MaineCare (Medicaid) is a federally funded program subject to compliance, audit, and reporting requirements. OCFS operates within the same administrative agency and frequently intersects with MaineCare-funded services.
 

Administrative prioritization may occur within agencies. However, when such prioritization results in the suspension or delay of appeal access—particularly in child welfare matters—families have a right to be informed.

The relevance of MaineCare and Medicare in this context is not an allegation of wrongdoing. It is a matter of process and transparency: when federal funding priorities are cited as justification for pausing appeal pathways, those decisions must be communicated clearly and documented openly.

 

Freedom of Access Requests and Transparency Concerns

 

In parallel with these inquiries, I submitted lawful Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requests seeking records related to these administrative decisions.
 

What began as a request that I was told would incur no cost and be fulfilled within four weeks ultimately extended beyond eight weeks, requiring repeated follow-up. After this delay, the terms of the request were changed, and I was informed that substantial fees would be required to proceed.
 

Additionally, other related FOAA requests have been met with proposed fees totaling tens of thousands of dollars, creating a significant barrier to access.
 

These developments are documented and relevant because FOAA exists to ensure transparency and public access to records. Shifting timelines, escalating costs, and inconsistent responses undermine the purpose of that law and raise legitimate concerns about good-faith compliance—particularly when the requested records pertain to matters of public interest.

 

Purpose of Making This Document Public

 

This document is being shared publicly for one reason: to preserve the record.
 

Rather than offering conclusions or interpretations, the original correspondence is provided so that readers—families, journalists, policymakers, auditors, and oversight bodies—can review it independently and understand the context in which these administrative decisions were acknowledged.
 

This page exists in the interest of transparency, accountability, and public trust. Silence or obstruction in response to reasonable requests for information is itself relevant, and preserving the record ensures that the facts are not lost to time.

 

Original Administrative Record

 

The document below is provided in full and without alteration.

Readers are encouraged to review it carefully and draw their own conclusions.
 

Transparency protects everyone—families, agencies, and the public alike.