Child-centered timing
Track prolonged cases, require visible timelines, and treat child-development time as a measurable public consequence without forcing unsafe speed.
Campaign centerpiecerev08aPublic reviewPre-submission
For Our Children and Families · Draft citizen initiative
An Act To Strengthen Maine Family Court Accountability and Protect Parent-Child Relationships
The centerpiece of this campaign is a citizen-led proposal intended to convert documented family-system failures into enforceable, measurable reform—while preserving child safety, good-faith reporting, due process, and the distinct roles of courts, DHHS/OCFS, protection-order processes, criminal processes, and support services.
Draft status: rev08a is published for public review. It has not been submitted to the Maine Secretary of State and is not an official ballot measure.
rev08acurrent public-review draft
26bill sections detected
10red-team issue areas
9 pagespublic-review full text
August 28, 2026 · New source-linked update
Professional judgment. Therapeutic time. A record you can check.
The updated Patrick S. Bedard accountability record brings together the service timestamp, prior appointment notice, Ramirez’s June 2025 communication, Bedard’s response, and the author’s complete new article.
Patrick S. Bedard accountability record ↗Read the August 28 article ↗Inspect the source notes ↗What the proposal is designed to address
Make family-system accountability operational—not rhetorical.
The draft is under public review because the details matter. Its current framework is organized around ten implementation questions: purpose, definitions, early case management, incentives, relationship protection, safety reporting, neutral-professional capacity, DHHS/OCFS separation, public reporting, and review/effective-date guardrails.
Parent-child relationship protection
Use conduct-specific standards, best-interest analysis, evidence, and safety exceptions rather than vague labels or automatic assumptions.
Safety and due process
Protect good-faith abuse and child-safety reporting while requiring notice, materiality, written findings, and review before rights-affecting action.
Professional and institutional accountability
Clarify capacity, disclosure, qualification, reporting, and implementation responsibilities for publicly compensated family-system actors.
Public performance reporting
Move reform through reports, rules, pilots, training, capacity review, phased dates, and source-published metrics.
Latest public commentary · Part III released August 23, 2026
The Weaponization of Time Against Maine's Children
Part III: A Child Cannot Have a Relationship With a PDF. The three-part series now traces the machinery, the way delay becomes the decision, and the implementation failure that remains after an order is signed.
“Did the institution make the protected right real while there was still time to exercise it?”
Signed public statement · September 9, 2026
A Speech for Change
From Paper Rights to Justice That Works. Systems fail. People make mistakes. The question is whether institutions can see failure, own the next action, and correct it while there is still time for the human beings living with the result.
Now available · Kindle · paperback · hardcover
Carpooling to Hell
A Father's Journey Through Maine's Family Courts
Carpooling to Hell is published and available on Amazon in Kindle, paperback, and hardcover editions. The Kindle edition is included with Kindle Unlimited for eligible subscribers. Read the official book page—or choose an edition below.
The rest of the campaign supports the initiative
Proof, public accountability, family help, and implementation reform all feed the same change project.
01 · DOCUMENT
Public accountability
Track issue owner, first notice, elapsed time, current result, requested remedy, next checkpoint, and source record.
Open command center →02 · VERIFYEvidence + source library
Use public-safe records, source classes, hashes, limitations, correction paths, and machine-readable ledgers.
Open source center →03 · IMPLEMENTOperational reform demands
Carry immediate administrative reforms while the broader citizen-initiative text is reviewed and hardened.
Open reform demands →04 · HELPPractical family help
Keep crisis routing, official doors, court-week tools, provider support, and usable family resources close to the public-policy work.
Open Start Here →05 · REVIEWPublic review
Review language, safety, due process, fiscal feasibility, implementation ownership, and source quality without private case intake.
Open review center →06 · MOVEOfficial action
Use targeted packets for procurement, oversight, legislation, media, and public-administration review.
Open action center →Public accountability snapshot · as of Aug. 19, 2026
Evidence should lead to an owner, a remedy, and a date.
Ten issue records connect the underlying public record to defined institutional owners and requested actions. These records do not substitute for the citizen-initiative text; they document why operational change is being demanded.
February 11 order implementation and adult logistics
The October 8 enforcement hearing is scheduled. The public record describes disputed practical implementation of contact, therapy, transportation, and information-sharing.
Open source record →Law Court directive and downstream implementation gap
Signed orders were entered May 12 and June 23. A public open letter followed August 17, and a Rule 10(c) intake and routing request followed August 18.
Open source record →York Judicial Center enforcement intake and scheduling
The August 14 procedural order preserved one enforcement motion, dismissed other submitted documents, required certified-mail service, and set an October 8 hearing.
Open source record →Public-review boundary
This is a draft policy project—not an official ballot measure or private case-intake portal.
Do not submit child names, sealed records, private medical or school information, confidential evidence, or private allegations through public campaign links. Public comments should address language, implementation, safety exceptions, fiscal feasibility, due-process protections, source quality, and institutional ownership.
Public review center · Privacy boundary · Corrections and reply · Full site directory · Release center
New evidence-and-hearing safeguard
Thirty-six unanswered questions. One narrow advocate–witness decision tree.
The public-safe V45 review separates documents, testimony, privilege, personal knowledge, and least-disruptive hearing remedies.
New in V46R1
Patrick S. Bedard's August 21 objection: integrated enforcement analysis
The new public-safe page examines child preference in historical context, adult implementation duties, evidentiary limits, and the continuing nonimplementation of the February 11 order. It expressly distinguishes allegation, argument, source record, and adjudicated finding.