Family law reform that reaches real lives.

What RISE is asking to change

RISE calls for a family justice system that protects children, tests disputed facts, and corrects avoidable failures before delay makes their consequences harder to repair. The initiative in bill form is the concrete proposal for public review. It is not enacted law. This page explains the movement’s standards, not a legal outcome promised to an individual family.

Our starting question is simple: can a person obtain an understandable, affordable, independent determination—with authority to correct a problem—while correction can still matter? A review route that exists on paper can fail that test in practice.

Challenge the whole path, not just one office

Intake, scheduling, record access, adjudication, enforcement and professional oversight may sit in different places. RISE asks who owns the unresolved request from beginning to end. The person asking for help should not have to become the only person who understands how the pieces fit together.

“End the legal racket” is our criticism of incentives that reward avoidable escalation and barriers that make correction unattainable. It is not a finding that every lawyer is predatory, every judge is wrong, or a particular dispute proves a racketeering crime. An allegation still needs evidence. So does an institutional answer.

What improvement must look like

RISE proposes an identifiable responsible office, usable records, understandable defect notices, deadlines tied to urgency, independent review, and escalation when the institution fails to act. Deadline failures should trigger accountable review—not automatic custody outcomes without examination of the evidence.

Emergency protection and fair process must work together. Prompt assessment must not become an excuse to leave a child in danger, and an allegation must not become a permanent outcome without fair review. Useful safeguards protect people; unnecessary complexity protects the obstacle.

Keep current law separate from the proposal

Maine’s parental-rights statute directs courts to apply the child’s best interests, with safety and well-being primary in residence and contact decisions. It also prohibits a preference between parents based on the parent’s gender or the child’s age or gender. Those provisions do not promise equal time in every case or establish that an individual decision complied with the law. Source: Maine Legislature: 19-A M.R.S. §1653, especially subsections 3–4

Make one change measurable

Choose an observable failure: an inaccessible record, an unexplained rejection, a request with no usable status, or a referral that cannot be accessed. Identify the date, the source and the practical correction sought. Ask who is responsible, what will happen next, and how the result will be checked. A request for an answer is more useful when another person can follow it.

Continuous improvement means revisiting the design after it is used. Did the change help? Who was still excluded? What failed next? The objective is not a better-looking process map. It is fewer preventable harms, earlier correction and a fairer experience for the next family.

You do not need to defend every word of this campaign to help test a better design. Read one provision. Challenge it constructively. Bring a better alternative with reasons. Public accountability must make room for correction—including correction of RISE.

This guide was prepared with AI assistance from the author’s RISE chapter, reform argument and linked primary sources. Research summaries are not individual findings. Nothing here claims a guaranteed outcome or replaces qualified advice. Submit a supported correction through the existing route.