In Re Olivia C.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

In Re Olivia C.

2008 ME 144, 956 A.2d 103, 2008 Me. LEXIS 146, 2008 WL 4216350

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedSeptember 16, 2008

DocketDocket: And-08-431

StatusPublished

This text of 2008 ME 144 (In Re Olivia C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Olivia C., 2008 ME 144, 956 A.2d 103, 2008 Me. LEXIS 146, 2008 WL 4216350 (Me. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] The father of Olivia C. appeals from the judgment of the District Court (Lewiston, Beliveau, J.) that found jeopardy, as to him, unproved but allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to retain custody of Olivia C., despite its failure to prove jeopardy as to the father pursuant to 22 M.R.S. 4035 (2007). The State concedes that upon the court’s finding that the State had failed to prove jeopardy, the State lacked authority to *104 retain custody of the child as against the father. The State’s view of the law is correct. Accordingly, we must vacate the District Court’s order and remand for appropriate proceedings to consider the father’s request that he be awarded custody of the child.

The entry is:

Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

[¶ 1] The father of Olivia C. appeals from the judgment of the District Court (Lewiston, Beliveau, J.) that found jeopardy, as to him, unproved but allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to retain custody of Olivia C., despite its failure to prove jeopardy as to the father pursuant to 22 M.R.S. 4035 (2007). The State concedes that upon the court’s finding that the State had failed to prove jeopardy, the State lacked authority to *104 retain custody of the child as against the father. The State’s view of the law is correct. Accordingly, we must vacate the District Court’s order and remand for appropriate proceedings to consider the father’s request that he be awarded custody of the child.

The entry is:

Judgment vacated. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2008 ME 144, 956 A.2d 103, 2008 Me. LEXIS 146, 2008 WL 4216350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-olivia-c-me-2008.