Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 22
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055 (2026)

Grounds for termination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Grounds.  The court may order termination of parental rights if:  
A. One of the following conditions has been met:  
(1) Custody has been removed from the parent under:  
(a) Section 4035 or 4038;  
(b) Title 19‑A, section 1502 or 1653;  
(c) Section 3792 prior to the effective date of this chapter; or  
(d) Title 15, section 3314, subsection 1, paragraph C‑1; or  
(2) The petition has been filed as part of an adoption proceeding in Title 18‑C, Article 9 or by a parent of the child or a parent or guardian of another parent of the child if that parent is a minor pursuant to Title 19‑A, section 1658; and   [PL 2021, c. 340, §5 (AMD).]
B. Either:  
(1) The parent consents to the termination after a judge has fully explained the effects of a termination order and such consent is written and voluntarily and knowingly executed in court before a judge;  
(2) The court finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that:  
(a) Termination is in the best interest of the child; and  
(b) Either:  
(i) The parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs;  
(ii) The parent has been unwilling or unable to take responsibility for the child within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs;  
(iii) The child has been abandoned; or  
(iv) The parent has failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with the child pursuant to section 4041; or  
(3) In the case of a petition brought as part of an adoption proceeding pursuant to Title 18‑C, Article 9 or by a parent of the child or a parent or guardian of another parent of the child if that parent is a minor pursuant to Title 19‑A, section 1658, the court finds that the applicable standards for termination of parental rights have been proven.   [PL 2021, c. 340, §5 (AMD).]
[PL 2021, c. 340, §5 (AMD).]
1-A.  Rebuttable presumption.  The court may presume that the parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy and these circumstances are unlikely to change within a time which is reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs if:  
A. The parent has acted toward a child in a manner that is heinous or abhorrent to society or has failed to protect a child in a manner that is heinous or abhorrent to society, without regard to the intent of the parent;   [PL 1995, c. 481, §3 (AMD).]
B. The victim of any of the following crimes was a child for whom the parent was responsible or the victim was a child who was a member of a household lived in or frequented by the parent and the parent has been convicted of:  
(1) Murder;  
(2) Felony murder;  
(3) Manslaughter;  
(4) Aiding or soliciting suicide;  
(5) Aggravated assault;  
(6) Rape;  
(7) Gross sexual misconduct or gross sexual assault;  
(8) Sexual abuse of minors;  
(9) Incest;  
(10) Kidnapping;  
(11) Promotion of prostitution, sexual exploitation of a minor, sex trafficking or aggravated sex trafficking; or  
(12) A comparable crime in another jurisdiction;   [PL 2015, c. 360, §4 (AMD).]
C. The child has been placed in the legal custody or care of the department, the parent has a chronic substance use disorder, and the parent's prognosis indicates that the child will not be able to return to the custody of the parent within a reasonable period of time, considering the child's age and the need for a permanent home. The fact that a parent has been unable to provide safe care of a child for a period of 9 months due to substance use constitutes a chronic substance use disorder;   [PL 2017, c. 407, Pt. A, §85 (AMD).]
D. The child has been placed in the legal custody or care of the department, the court has previously terminated parental rights to another child who is a member of the same family and the parent continues to lack the ability or willingness to show the court that the parent has sought services that would rehabilitate the parent or the parent can not show evidence that an additional period of services would result in reunification in a time reasonably calculated to meet the needs of the child and the child's need for a permanent home; or   [PL 1995, c. 481, §4 (NEW).]
E. The child has been placed in the legal custody or care of the department for at least 9 months, and the parents have been offered or received services to correct the situation but have refused or have made no significant effort to correct the situation.   [PL 1997, c. 475, §9 (AMD).]
[PL 2017, c. 407, Pt. A, §85 (AMD).]
1-B.  Conception by sexual assault as grounds for termination.  The court may order termination of parental rights if the court finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the child was conceived as a result of an act by the parent of sexual assault or a comparable crime in another jurisdiction. For purposes of this subsection, "sexual assault" has the same meaning as in Title 17‑A, section 253, 254 or 556. A guilty plea or conviction for sexual assault is considered clear and convincing evidence for purposes of this subsection.  
[PL 2015, c. 427, §2 (NEW).]
2.  Primary considerations.  In deciding to terminate parental rights, the court shall consider the best interest of the child, the needs of the child, including the child's age, the child's attachments to relevant persons, periods of attachments and separation, the child's ability to integrate into a substitute placement or back into the parent's home and the child's physical and emotional needs.  
[PL 1997, c. 475, §10 (AMD).]
3.  Wishes of child.  The court shall consider the wishes of a child, in a manner appropriate to the age of the child, in making an order under this section.  
[PL 2009, c. 557, §4 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1979, c. 733, §18 (NEW). PL 1981, c. 369, §§15,16 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 249, §2 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 772, §§8,9 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 739, §16 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 198, §2 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 481, §§3-5 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 694, §D48 (AMD). PL 1995, c. 694, §E2 (AFF). PL 1997, c. 475, §§9,10 (AMD). PL 1997, c. 715, §A12 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 696, §35 (AMD). PL 2009, c. 557, §4 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 360, §4 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 427, §2 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. C, §69 (AMD). PL 2017, c. 402, Pt. F, §1 (AFF). PL 2017, c. 407, Pt. A, §85 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 417, Pt. B, §14 (AFF). PL 2021, c. 340, §5 (AMD).
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 497 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017). · cites it 19× “Specifically, in 2005, 1 The Legislature’s recent amendment to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A) does not affect the analysis of the law in this case.”
In Re Scott S., 2001 ME 114 (Me. 2001). · cites it 14× “22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2000); see also Santosky, 455 U.”
In Re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159 (Me. 2002). · cites it 20× “) terminating her parental rights to her daughter pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2001). [1] The mother challenges, inter alia, the trial court's exclusion of certain medical evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.”
In Re Charles G., 2001 ME 3 (Me. 2001). · cites it 18× “On appeal, the mother argues, inter alia, that (A) the court’s reliance on prior orders violated her constitutional rights, (B) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s termination of her parental rights, (C) the court erred *1165 in finding that she did not rebut…”
Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220 (Me. 2017). · cites it 9× “[¶ 28] The court’s findings also referenced 22 M.R.S. § 4055 and noted that statute’s requirement for findings by clear and convincing evidence addressing parental unfitness and the best interest of the child, but the court did not state specific findings on those issues.”
In re Child of James R., 2018 ME 50 (Me. 2018). · cites it 6× “See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B) (2017). Here, the court concluded that the Department proved two forms of parental unfitness: that the father has been unable to protect the child from jeopardy and will be unable to do so within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs;…”
In Re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104 (Me. 2004). · cites it 6× “) terminating their parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (2004). The parents challenge several aspects of the judgment, including the sufficiency of the evidence establishing their parental unfitness and the court’s determination of Thomas’s best interest.”
In re Child of Radience K., 2019 ME 73 (Me. 2019). · cites it 7× “Instead, each parent contends that the court erred by finding that active efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts had proved unsuccessful.”
In re Christopher S., 203 A.3d 808 (Me. 2019). · cites it 8× “) terminating his parental rights to two of his children 1 pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2018).”
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005). · cites it 4× “to their two children pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (2004). Although the court found the parents unfit, it concluded that it was not in the best interests of the children to terminate the parents’ parental rights.”
In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018). · cites it 5× “Although the parents do not challenge the court's conclusion that they are unfit within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) (2017), they contend that the court erred by determining that termination is in the children's best interests, see 22 M.”
In re Caleb M., 2017 ME 66 (Me. 2017). · cites it 3× “22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A)(C); see also 22 M.R.”
Show all 497 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1) — 14 cases
In re K.M., 2015 ME 79 (Me. 2015).
In re Child of Radience K., 2019 ME 73 (Me. 2019). “Instead, each parent contends that the court erred by finding that active efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts had proved unsuccessful.”
In re Brandon D., 854 A.2d 228 (Me. 2004).
In Re Alexander D., 1998 ME 207 (Me. 1998).
In re D.P., 2013 ME 40 (Me. 2013).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(A) — 9 cases
In re Adden B., 2016 ME 113 (Me. 2016).
In re Isabelle W., 2017 ME 81 (Me. 2017).
In re Isabelle W., 159 A.3d 1225 (Me. 2017).
In Re Shulikov, 2000 ME 70 (Me. 2000).
In re Dominic B., 167 A.3d 555 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(A)(1) — 6 cases
In re Asanah S., 177 A.3d 1273 (Me. 2018).
In re Eric K., 180 A.3d 666 (Me. 2018).
In re Zoey H., 2017 ME 159 (Me. 2017).
In re Mackenzie P., 166 A.3d 104 (Me. 2017).
In re Mackenzie P., 166 A.3d 104 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) — 82 cases
In re Child of Ronald W., 2018 ME 107 (Me. 2018).
In re Melissa F., 191 A.3d 348 (Me. 2018).
In re Heather W., 180 A.3d 661 (Me. 2018).
In re M.P., 2015 ME 138 (Me. 2015).
In re Child. of Melissa F., 2018 ME 110 (Me. 2018).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(A)(1)(b) — 2 cases
In re Child of Gustavus E., 2018 ME 43 (Me. 2018).
Adoption by Joseph R., 2024 ME 47 (Me. 2024).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(A)(2) — 9 cases
Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220 (Me. 2017). “[¶ 28] The court’s findings also referenced 22 M.R.S. § 4055 and noted that statute’s requirement for findings by clear and convincing evidence addressing parental unfitness and the best interest of the child, but the court did not state specific findings on those issues.”
Adoption of Riahleigh M.Adoption of MyAnnah D., 2019 ME 24 (Me. 2019).
Adoption by Jessica M., 2020 ME 118 (Me. 2020).
Adoption of Shayleigh S., 2018 ME 165 (Me. 2018).
In Re David G., 659 A.2d 859 (Me. 1995).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(B) — 9 cases
In re Cameron B., 2017 ME 18 (Me. 2017).
In re Child of James R., 2018 ME 50 (Me. 2018). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B) (2017). Here, the court concluded that the Department proved two forms of parental unfitness: that the father has been unable to protect the child from jeopardy and will be unable to do so within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs;…”
In re Cameron Z., 2016 ME 162 (Me. 2016).
In re Child. of Melissa F., 2018 ME 110 (Me. 2018).
In re Melissa F., 191 A.3d 348 (Me. 2018).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(B)(1) — 24 cases
Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore, 2014 ME 59 (Me. 2014).
In re H.C., 2013 ME 97 (Me. 2013).
In Re Robert S., 2009 ME 18 (Me. 2009).
In re Child of Rebecca J., 2019 ME 76 (Me. 2019).
In re Child of Tanya C., 2018 ME 153 (Me. 2018).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(B)(2) — 119 cases
In re Child of James R., 2018 ME 50 (Me. 2018). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B) (2017). Here, the court concluded that the Department proved two forms of parental unfitness: that the father has been unable to protect the child from jeopardy and will be unable to do so within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs;…”
Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220 (Me. 2017). “[¶ 28] The court’s findings also referenced 22 M.R.S. § 4055 and noted that statute’s requirement for findings by clear and convincing evidence addressing parental unfitness and the best interest of the child, but the court did not state specific findings on those issues.”
In re A.M., 55 A.3d 463 (Me. 2012).
In Re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104 (Me. 2004). “) terminating their parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (2004). The parents challenge several aspects of the judgment, including the sufficiency of the evidence establishing their parental unfitness and the court’s determination of Thomas’s best interest.”
Matthew W. Pitts v. Amanda M. Moore, 2014 ME 59 (Me. 2014).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(B)(2)(1992) — 1 case
In Re Charles G., 2001 ME 3 (Me. 2001). “On appeal, the mother argues, inter alia, that (A) the court’s reliance on prior orders violated her constitutional rights, (B) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s termination of her parental rights, (C) the court erred *1165 in finding that she did not rebut…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(B)(2)(B) — 1 case
In re Child of Carl D., 2019 ME 67 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a) — 172 cases
In re Christopher S., 203 A.3d 808 (Me. 2019). “) terminating his parental rights to two of his children 1 pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), (iv) (2018).”
In re Child. of Christopher S., 2019 ME 31 (Me. 2019).
In Re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159 (Me. 2002). “) terminating her parental rights to her daughter pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2001). [1] The mother challenges, inter alia, the trial court's exclusion of certain medical evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.”
In re Child. of Nicole M., 2018 ME 75 (Me. 2018). “Although the parents do not challenge the court's conclusion that they are unfit within the meaning of 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) (2017), they contend that the court erred by determining that termination is in the children's best interests, see 22 M.”
In re Logan M., 2017 ME 23 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b) — 164 cases
In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017). “Specifically, in 2005, 1 The Legislature’s recent amendment to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A) does not affect the analysis of the law in this case.”
In Re Scott S., 2001 ME 114 (Me. 2001). “22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2000); see also Santosky, 455 U.”
In re Child of Radience K., 2019 ME 73 (Me. 2019). “Instead, each parent contends that the court erred by finding that active efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that those efforts had proved unsuccessful.”
In re Child. of Corey W., 2019 ME 4 (Me. 2019).
In re Tiyonie R., 203 A.3d 824 (Me. 2019).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(1)(D)(2)(b) — 1 case
In Re Thomas D., 2004 ME 104 (Me. 2004). “) terminating their parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (2004). The parents challenge several aspects of the judgment, including the sufficiency of the evidence establishing their parental unfitness and the court’s determination of Thomas’s best interest.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(2) — 39 cases
In Re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159 (Me. 2002). “) terminating her parental rights to her daughter pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2001). [1] The mother challenges, inter alia, the trial court's exclusion of certain medical evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.”
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005). “to their two children pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (2004). Although the court found the parents unfit, it concluded that it was not in the best interests of the children to terminate the parents’ parental rights.”
In Re Charles G., 2001 ME 3 (Me. 2001). “On appeal, the mother argues, inter alia, that (A) the court’s reliance on prior orders violated her constitutional rights, (B) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s termination of her parental rights, (C) the court erred *1165 in finding that she did not rebut…”
In re Child of James R., 2018 ME 50 (Me. 2018). “See 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(B) (2017). Here, the court concluded that the Department proved two forms of parental unfitness: that the father has been unable to protect the child from jeopardy and will be unable to do so within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child's needs;…”
Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220 (Me. 2017). “[¶ 28] The court’s findings also referenced 22 M.R.S. § 4055 and noted that statute’s requirement for findings by clear and convincing evidence addressing parental unfitness and the best interest of the child, but the court did not state specific findings on those issues.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(3) — 7 cases
In Re Charles G., 2001 ME 3 (Me. 2001). “On appeal, the mother argues, inter alia, that (A) the court’s reliance on prior orders violated her constitutional rights, (B) there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s termination of her parental rights, (C) the court erred *1165 in finding that she did not rebut…”
In Re Christopher J., 505 A.2d 795 (Me. 1986).
In Re Frederick P., 2001 ME 138 (Me. 2001).
In Re Justin S., 595 A.2d 1058 (Me. 1991).
In re Merton R., 545 A.2d 650 (Me. 1988).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B) — 2 cases
Adoption of Tobias D., 2012 ME 45 (Me. 2012).
In Re Kenneth H., 1997 ME 48 (Me. 1997).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B)(2) — 5 cases
In Re Joshua B., 2001 ME 115 (Me. 2001).
In re I.S., 2015 ME 100 (Me. 2015).
In Re Marpheen C., 2002 ME 170 (Me. 2002).
In Re David G., 659 A.2d 859 (Me. 1995).
State of Maine v. A.I., 2020 ME 89 (Me. 2020).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B)(2)(a) — 6 cases
In Re Breauna N., 1999 ME 191 (Me. 1999).
In re Marcus E., 2017 ME 200 (Me. 2017).
In re Marcus E., 171 A.3d 190 (Me. 2017).
In re Marcus E., 171 A.3d 190 (Me. 2017).
In re Marcus E., 171 A.3d 190 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B)(2)(b) — 1 case
In re Doris G., 912 A.2d 572 (Me. 2006).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B)(2)(b)(i) — 9 cases
In Re William S., 2000 ME 34 (Me. 2000).
In re Child of Kenneth S., 2022 ME 14 (Me. 2022).
In re Mya E., 161 A.3d 708 (Me. 2017).
In re Mya E., 161 A.3d 708 (Me. 2017).
In re Richard M., 172 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B)(2)(b)(ii) — 1 case
In Re William S., 2000 ME 34 (Me. 2000).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B)(2)(b)(iv) — 1 case
In Re William S., 2000 ME 34 (Me. 2000).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(B)(a) — 1 case
In Re William S., 2000 ME 34 (Me. 2000).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(I)(A)(l)(a) — 1 case
In Re Dakota K., 2016 ME 30 (Me. 2016).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(I)(B) — 1 case
In Re Melanie S., 1998 ME 132 (Me. 1998).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(l)(A) — 4 cases
In re Richard M., 172 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017).
In re Richard M., 172 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017).
In re Richard M., 172 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017).
In re Richard M., 172 A.3d 914 (Me. 2017).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(l)(A)(l)(a) — 54 cases
In re Emma S., 177 A.3d 632 (Me. 2018).
Miller v. Nichols, 586 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009).
In Re Hannah S., 2016 ME 32 (Me. 2016).
In re Tyrel L., 2017 ME 212 (Me. 2017).
In re M.C., 2014 ME 128 (Me. 2014).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(l)(B)(2)(a) — 72 cases
In Re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159 (Me. 2002). “) terminating her parental rights to her daughter pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2001). [1] The mother challenges, inter alia, the trial court's exclusion of certain medical evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.”
In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005). “to their two children pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (2004). Although the court found the parents unfit, it concluded that it was not in the best interests of the children to terminate the parents’ parental rights.”
In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017). “Specifically, in 2005, 1 The Legislature’s recent amendment to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A) does not affect the analysis of the law in this case.”
In Re Robert S., 2009 ME 18 (Me. 2009).
In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(l)(B)(2)(b) — 89 cases
In Re Scott S., 2001 ME 114 (Me. 2001). “22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2000); see also Santosky, 455 U.”
In re Evelyn A., 2017 ME 182 (Me. 2017). “Specifically, in 2005, 1 The Legislature’s recent amendment to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1-A) does not affect the analysis of the law in this case.”
In Re Robert S., 2009 ME 18 (Me. 2009).
In Re Michaela C., 2002 ME 159 (Me. 2002). “) terminating her parental rights to her daughter pursuant to 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (1992 & Supp.2001). [1] The mother challenges, inter alia, the trial court's exclusion of certain medical evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence.”
Adoption of Isabelle T., 2017 ME 220 (Me. 2017). “[¶ 28] The court’s findings also referenced 22 M.R.S. § 4055 and noted that statute’s requirement for findings by clear and convincing evidence addressing parental unfitness and the best interest of the child, but the court did not state specific findings on those issues.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(l)(B)(2)(i) — 1 case
In Re Hope M., 1998 ME 170 (Me. 1998).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 4055(lKB)(2)(a) — 1 case
In re Aliyah M., 2016 ME 106 (Me. 2016).
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.