Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Adoption of Lily T.green2 sentences2017In re Jacob B., 2008 ME 168, ¶ 14 , 959 A.2d 734 ; see also Adoption of Lily T., 2010 ME 58, ¶ 37 , 997 A.2d 722 . [¶ 50] Isabelle and Abigail were seven and four years of age, respectively, at the time of the termination hearing. 2017In re Jacob B., 2008 ME 168, ¶ 14 , 959 A.2d 734 ; see also Adoption of Lily T., 2010 ME 58, ¶ 37 , 997 A.2d 722 . [¶ 50] Isabelle and Abigail were seven and four years of age, respectively, at the time of the termination hearing. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Scott S.green2 sentences2017See In re Scott S., 2001 ME 114, ¶ 30 , 775 A.2d 1144 . 3 caseworker[,] . . . ignored the Department’s attempts to develop a plan to address reunification,” and, at the time of the termination hearing, had not visited with the child in over six months. 2017See In re Scott S., 2001 ME 114, ¶ 30 , 775 A.2d 1144 . 3 caseworker[,] . . . ignored the Department’s attempts to develop a plan to address reunification,” and, at the time of the termination hearing, had not visited with the child in over six months. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Hope H.
green
2 sentences2018Moreover, since the jeopardy hearing, both parents have tested positive for illegal substances, and both parents have been involved in new criminal activity. [¶11] “Marginal progress toward reunification and a simple desire to remain parents is not enough to ameliorate jeopardy . . . .” In re Hope H., 2017 ME 198, ¶ 10 , 170 A.3d 813 . 2018Moreover, since the jeopardy hearing, both parents have tested positive for illegal substances, and both parents have been involved in new criminal activity. [¶ 11] "Marginal progress toward reunification and a simple desire to remain parents is not enough to ameliorate jeopardy ...." In re Hope H. , 2017 ME 198 , ¶ 10, 170 A.3d 813 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In re Hope H.
green
2 sentences2018Moreover, since the jeopardy hearing, both parents have tested positive for illegal substances, and both parents have been involved in new criminal activity. [¶11] “Marginal progress toward reunification and a simple desire to remain parents is not enough to ameliorate jeopardy . . . .” In re Hope H., 2017 ME 198, ¶ 10 , 170 A.3d 813 . 2018Moreover, since the jeopardy hearing, both parents have tested positive for illegal substances, and both parents have been involved in new criminal activity. [¶ 11] "Marginal progress toward reunification and a simple desire to remain parents is not enough to ameliorate jeopardy ...." In re Hope H. , 2017 ME 198 , ¶ 10, 170 A.3d 813 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
In re Jacob B.
green
2 sentences2017In re Jacob B., 2008 ME 168, ¶ 14 , 959 A.2d 734 ; see also Adoption of Lily T., 2010 ME 58, ¶ 37 , 997 A.2d 722 . [¶ 50] Isabelle and Abigail were seven and four years of age, respectively, at the time of the termination hearing. 2017In re Jacob B., 2008 ME 168, ¶ 14 , 959 A.2d 734 ; see also Adoption of Lily T., 2010 ME 58, ¶ 37 , 997 A.2d 722 . [¶ 50] Isabelle and Abigail were seven and four years of age, respectively, at the time of the termination hearing. | 2 | 2010–2017 |
In re Cameron B.
green
1 sentence2020We set aside a trial court’s finding of unfitness based upon clear and convincing evidence “only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it, if the fact-finder clearly misapprehends the meaning of the evidence, or if the finding is so contrary to the credible evidence that it does not represent the 7 truth and right of the case.” In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18, ¶ 10 , 154 A.3d 1199 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Cameron B.
green
1 sentence2020We set aside a trial court’s finding of unfitness based upon clear and convincing evidence “only if there is no competent evidence in the record to support it, if the fact-finder clearly misapprehends the meaning of the evidence, or if the finding is so contrary to the credible evidence that it does not represent the 7 truth and right of the case.” In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18, ¶ 10 , 154 A.3d 1199 (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Adoption of Isabelle T.
green
2 sentences2019The child was in this relative's care at the time of the termination hearing. 3 In title 22 proceedings for the termination of parental rights, "the court does not begin to consider post-termination placements until after termination of parental rights has been ordered." Adoption of Isabelle T. , 2017 ME 220 , ¶ 9, 175 A.3d 639 . "[I]n a consolidated proceeding where the court addresses a termination petition and establishes a permanency plan, while the court may determine that as a general matter adoption is in the child's best interest and will be the permanency plan, the court would overrea 2019The child was in this relative's care at the time of the termination hearing. 3 In title 22 proceedings for the termination of parental rights, "the court does not begin to consider post-termination placements until after termination of parental rights has been ordered." Adoption of Isabelle T. , 2017 ME 220 , ¶ 9, 175 A.3d 639 . "[I]n a consolidated proceeding where the court addresses a termination petition and establishes a permanency plan, while the court may determine that as a general matter adoption is in the child's best interest and will be the permanency plan, the court would overrea | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Children of Nicole M.
green
2 sentences2019The child was in this relative's care at the time of the termination hearing. 3 In title 22 proceedings for the termination of parental rights, "the court does not begin to consider post-termination placements until after termination of parental rights has been ordered." Adoption of Isabelle T. , 2017 ME 220 , ¶ 9, 175 A.3d 639 . "[I]n a consolidated proceeding where the court addresses a termination petition and establishes a permanency plan, while the court may determine that as a general matter adoption is in the child's best interest and will be the permanency plan, the court would overrea 2019The child was in this relative's care at the time of the termination hearing. 3 In title 22 proceedings for the termination of parental rights, "the court does not begin to consider post-termination placements until after termination of parental rights has been ordered." Adoption of Isabelle T. , 2017 ME 220 , ¶ 9, 175 A.3d 639 . "[I]n a consolidated proceeding where the court addresses a termination petition and establishes a permanency plan, while the court may determine that as a general matter adoption is in the child's best interest and will be the permanency plan, the court would overrea | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Thomas H.
green
2 sentences2019Although the mother indicated that she was willing to continue to work toward reunification, the court's determination correctly recognized that permanency is a central tenet of Maine's Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act, 22 M.R.S. §§ 4001 to 4099-H (2018), see In re Thomas H. , 2005 ME 123 , ¶ 23, 889 A.2d 297 , and that one of the purposes of the act is to "[e]liminate the need for children to wait unreasonable periods of time for their parents to correct the conditions which prevent their return to the family," 22 M.R.S. § 4050(2) (2018). 2019Although the mother indicated that she was willing to continue to work toward reunification, the court's determination correctly recognized that permanency is a central tenet of Maine's Child and Family Services and Child Protection Act, 22 M.R.S. §§ 4001 to 4099-H (2018), see In re Thomas H. , 2005 ME 123 , ¶ 23, 889 A.2d 297 , and that one of the purposes of the act is to "[e]liminate the need for children to wait unreasonable periods of time for their parents to correct the conditions which prevent their return to the family," 22 M.R.S. § 4050(2) (2018). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.