Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 19
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19, § 531 (2026)

Persons who may adopt

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1967, c. 432, §1 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 294 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 328 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 433, §35 (AMD). PL 1969, c. 539 (RPR). PL 1971, c. 598, §31 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 451, §§6,9 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 733, §§7,8 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 262, §3 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 102 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 686, §3 (RP). PL 1993, c. 686, §13 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1969–2009 · leading case: Adoption of Patricia S., 2009 ME 76 (Me. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adoption of Patricia S., 2009 ME 76 (Me. 2009). · cites it 4× “1 See 19 M.R.S.A. § 531 (Supp.1991). Maine counsel further advised them that the summer home in North Haven, located in Knox County, would likely provide a sufficient connection to Maine to confer jurisdiction to the Knox County Probate Court to allow it to grant the adoption.”
Adoption of M.A., 930 A.2d 1088 (Me. 2007). “158, § 36 (1954); 19 M.R.S.A. § 531 (1964); P.L. 1967, ch. 432; P.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. Sabattus, 683 A.2d 170 (Me. 1996). · cites it 2× “In particular, Sabattus relies on language formerly found in 19 M.R.S.A. § 531 (1981) providing that "[a]ny husband and wife jointly, or any unmarried *172 person, resident or nonresident of the State of Maine, may petition the probate court to adopt a person, regardless of age.”
In Re Melissa C., 516 A.2d 946 (Me. 1986). · cites it 2× “§ 251 (1979); 19 M.R.S.A. § 531 (Supp.1985). Direct appeal of a Probate Court decision to the Law Court is provided by 19 M.”
In re Adoption of G., 502 A.2d 1044 (Me. 1986). “1985-1986), but is one governed by 19 M.R.S.A. § 531. Compare 18-A M.R.S.A. § l-302(a).”
In Re David, 256 A.2d 583 (Me. 1969). “ntioned: and, NOW having considered the circumstances connected with the foregoing SURRENDER AND RELEASE and having fully explained the effect thereof to said [name deleted]; it is hereby determined that such SURRENDER AND RELEASE is for the best interests of all parties…”
In re Murray, 462 A.2d 33 (Me. 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 251 *35 (1979) 2 and 19 M.R.S.A. § 531 (1981). 3 This jurisdiction includes powers necessary or ancillary to execution of an adoption proceeding.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.