Children play at the Downtown Children’s Center in St. Louis, Missouri. (Photo by Rebecca Rivas/Missouri Independent)
While plenty of the work done in Augusta shapes the lives of the young Mainers, legislators considered a number of bills this week that specifically honed in on the rights and protections afforded to children and teenagers.
Multiple committees held public hearings about proposals to change how the youngest Mainers can use the internet, be protected from abuse and participate in the state’s workforce.
Here’s a closer look at six pieces of legislation related to children’s rights in Maine.
Limiting children’s rights
Rep. Ken Fredette (R-Newport) proposed LD 844, which would require social media companies to prohibit people under the age of 14 from having accounts. The bill would require age verification for new accounts and mandate parental consent.
Fredette modeled the bill after a law in Florida as a means to empower parents, protect children and create healthier online habits, he said.
“We regulate all kinds of things for kids, including helmets if they’re riding a bike, when they can buy alcohol, when they can buy cigarettes, and I think we all are aware of different instances where there are platforms minor children are accessing that they shouldn’t be accessing,” Fredette said during a public hearing on the legislation before the Judiciary Committee on Monday.
No one from the public spoke in favor of the proposal but those opposed — including the American Civil LIberties of Maine, Maine State Chamber of Commerce and a number of tech groups — argued that while they agree with the goal of protecting minors online, this bill is not a solution.
The bill raises constitutional concerns about free speech, many said, pointing to federal courts that have blocked similar legislation in Utah, Mississippi, Arkansas and Ohio. Conversely, last week a federal judge rejected a request to block enforcement of the Florida law that Fredette modeled his legislation after.
Charlie Soltan from the Motion Picture Association said lawmakers should be careful regulating this area, as the Legislature has tried and failed to before.
In 2009, the Legislature passed a law intended to prevent predatory marketing practices against minors. Gov. Janet Mills, who was the state attorney general at the time, refused to enforce the law because she saw it as unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment. A federal judge agreed and lawmakers later repealed the statute.
Other objections were reminiscent of arguments against data privacy legislation the Legislature considered last session. Amy Bos, director of state and federal affairs at NetChoice, a trade association that represents platforms including Meta, said the bill would undermine data minimization principles, which is the idea of only allowing companies to collect data that is specifically tied to the product or service the consumer requested.
LD 884 would require social media platforms to confirm the identity and age of users by requiring the submission of sensitive data such as government-issued identification documents. This requirement could also prevent access to such platforms for people without official documentation.
Given this, Brianna January with Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition devoted to a progressive society, argued LD 844 would undermine privacy for all users including adults.
January also raised concern that the bill could be weaponized by parents or guardians who are anti-LGBTQ to prevent their kids from accessing community resources and safe spaces online that often serve as lifelines to children in non-accepting families.
Fredette is also trying to change state law to allow for longer criminal sentences for minors.
LD 535 would allow a court to impose a sentence on a juvenile that extends beyond their 21st birthday for murder or a Class A offense, the most serious type of crime. To make this determination, the bill would require the court to weigh a number of factors — such as the circumstances of the offense, prior criminal history and the impact of the victim.
Currently under the Maine Juvenile Code, the maximum period of incarceration someone in the juvenile system can receive is an indeterminate commitment to a Department of Corrections juvenile facility to the age of 21.
The Maine Department of Corrections, ACLU of Maine, Maine Prosecutors Association, Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Maine Prisoner Advocacy Coalition oppose LD 535. Many because they say the proposal would undermine existing procedure.
While employed sparingly, the Maine Juvenile Code outlines a procedure for “binding over,” which allows courts to weigh and evaluate criteria under which a juvenile should be transferred to adult court. Several who testified noted the criteria for that process is very similar to the criteria in LD 535.
“The current legislation is intended to address a problem that does not exist,” Tina Heather Nadeau, executive director of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, wrote in testimony submitted ahead of Tuesday’s public hearing on the measure. “When young people are bound over to be prosecuted as adults, they are subject to severe adult penalties already. Without that process, it would be giving judges far too much discretion to impose prison terms that extend beyond a young person’s 21st birthday without the due process that would ensure basic fairness in the proceeding.”
Christine Thibeault, associate commissioner for Maine DOC’s Division of Juvenile Services, raised constitutional challenges, because LD 535 would authorize imprisonment in an adult correctional facility without indictment by a grand jury or the opportunity for a jury trial.
The Maine Juvenile Code does not provide a right to a jury trial currently, however in the bind-over process all protections, including the right to a jury trial, and procedural rules applicable to criminal cases are available, Thibeault said.
Expanding children’s rights
Sen. Donna Bailey (D-York) proposed LD 950 to allow children to file protection from abuse orders on their own behalf.
Maine is one of 11 states that expressly prohibits victims under the age of 18 from filing for civil protection orders on their own behalf, whereas 14 states specifically allow minors to file for these orders and others have more ambiguous language that has allowed for laws to be interpreted to provide minors this right.
“One in three adolescents is a victim of physical, sexual, emotional or verbal abuse from a dating partner, a figure that far exceeds rates of other types of youth violence,” said Andrea Mancuso from the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, adding that roughly 10% of Maine high schoolers who had a dating relationship in the preceding year before the group’s 2023 survey reported that their partner physically hurt them on purpose at least once.
Testifying during a Monday public hearing on the bill, Bailey and Mancuso also said Maine courts have interpreted current statute inconsistently in what types of adults are allowed to file on behalf of a minor.
Some courts have said only a parent, legal guardian or a representative of the Department of Health and Human Services has that ability. Other courts interpreted the statute more liberally, allowing a responsible adult with a sufficient relationship to the child to apply on their behalf.
This inconsistency was underscored by an example provided by Lucia Chomeau Hunt, an attorney of Family Law and Victim Rights at Pine Tree Legal Assistance.
A minor in the Bangor area accused her father of sexual abuse. Her mother lived in another country. She had been living at a friend’s house and when her father tried to get back in contact with her, she wanted to file for a protection from abuse order. As her primary caregiver, the friend’s mother tried to file on her behalf but the court said she did not have that authority. The minor, who was nearing her 18th birthday, decided to hide out until then, Hunt said.
Representatives for the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, also testifying in support, said more than half of the children who disclose sexual abuse at their children’s advocacy centers are accusing a family member or someone close to them, which they said presents a clear barrier when a child needs a family member to file an order on their behalf.
The proposal would also update Maine’s domestic violence advocate privilege statute to align with the structure of the sexual assault statute by extending advocate privilege to staff members or volunteers of a domestic violence services provider who has received appropriate training.
Child labor laws
The Legislature’s Labor Committee held public hearings for three bills looking to amend youth labor laws regarding wages, permissible hours to work and more.
The bills were framed by supporters as increasing opportunities for teenagers to develop workplace skills and earn an income, but opponents pushed back on this saying that labor participation rates for 16- to 24-year-olds in Maine is already higher than the national average and existing laws are in place to protect the safety and wellbeing of young workers.
Rep. Mathew McIntyre (R-Lowell) sponsored LD 112 to allow employers to pay high school students 50% of the state’s minimum wage for up to two years or until they graduate. He clarified that the bill would still allow employers to pay those students the full minimum wage or more, but it also creates more flexibility to address labor shortages.
Though agricultural workers aren’t actually included in the state’s minimum wage law, the Maine Wild Blueberry Commission spoke in favor of LD 112. Eric Venturini, executive director of the commission, said lowering the wage floor for younger workers could provide more opportunities in towns where there typically aren’t as many, while helping producers find more labor, which he described as “an increasingly rare commodity.”
However, the Maine AFL-CIO opposed the creation of a subminimum wage for young people because it could undermine adult wages and pose challenges for youth who work to contribute to their household income.
Rep. David Boyer (R-Poland) brought forth LD 618 on behalf of a business owner in his district to extend the hours that minors can work. Currently, statute allows them to work until 7 p.m. during the school year and 9 p.m. during summer vacation. Boyer’s bill would extend those to 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., respectively.
And Rep. Alicia Collins (R-Sidney) proposed LD 644, which would rollback a number of child labor protections regarding the number of hours 16- and 17-year-olds can work in a given week and certain record keeping requirements.
“If enacted, this bill would eliminate protections that ensure minors are not working excessive hours that interfere with their education and wellbeing,” said Dillon Murray, legislative liaison for the Department of Labor, when testifying against the proposal.
He added that “the bill also removes provisions that prevent minors from working during school hours, effectively allowing them to work at any time which could negatively impact school attendance and performance, especially for minors experiencing poverty and may contribute to their household income.”
Murray said the department is opposed to all three proposals. In addition to a general sentiment against creating workforce inequity for young people, he said LD 112 could increase enforcement responsibilities and defy recent legislative action to promote wage equity, while LD 618 could conflict with federal laws.
Hospitality Maine and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce are in support of the bills as a solution to the workforce challenge. Jacob Lachance, government relations specialist for the Chamber, said the workforce situation in Maine is “tough as best,” and the bills presented Tuesday are a starting point for filling those gaps in a way that is mutually beneficial to young people and employers.
Rep. Valli Geiger (D-Rockland) asked Lachance if the Chamber is similarly supportive of efforts to delay the start of school days to allow students to work later. Lachance said he wasn’t aware of any specific conversations on that topic.
Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D-Cumberland) has a bill this session that would prohibit high schools from starting before 8:30 a.m. Boyer said this proposal could quell concerns about students getting enough sleep with his proposal to extend the youth work day.
Proponents of Boyer’s bill also pointed out that many extracurricular activities including sports and theater take place later in the evening, so employment opportunities shouldn’t have such early curfews.
The Maine AFL-CIO also testified against the two bills related to working hours, citing concerns that they could reverse progress on workplace safety for minors.
All three bills “erode the proper balance between work, education and just plain being a kid,” said Ben Grant, general counsel for the Maine Education Association, in his testimony against all the bills.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.