In re Sarrah P.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

In re Sarrah P.

532 A.2d 155, 1987 Me. LEXIS 801

DecidedOctober 13, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 532 A.2d 155 (In re Sarrah P.) 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 Sarrah P., 532 A.2d 155, 1987 Me. LEXIS 801 (Me. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Cynthia P., mother of Sarrah P., appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Lewiston) terminating her parental rights and denying her motion for review of the final protection order concerning the absence of a reunification plan by the Department of Human Services. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (Supp.1986); 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038 (Supp.1986). On appeal she argues that the termination order is not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the District Court erred in denying her motion for review.

Examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the party prevailing in the District Court, we conclude that the evidence sufficiently supports the factfinder’s conclusion that the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights were proved to a high degree of probability. See In re Maria C., 527 A.2d 318, 319 (Me.1987); In re John Joseph V., 500 A.2d 628, 629 (Me.1985). The same evidence necessarily supports the denial by the District Court of the motion for review of the final protection order. The remaining contentions are without merit and require no discussion.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Cynthia P., mother of Sarrah P., appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Lewiston) terminating her parental rights and denying her motion for review of the final protection order concerning the absence of a reunification plan by the Department of Human Services. 22 M.R.S.A. § 4055 (Supp.1986); 22 M.R.S.A. § 4038 (Supp.1986). On appeal she argues that the termination order is not supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the District Court erred in denying her motion for review.

Examining the evidence in a light most favorable to the party prevailing in the District Court, we conclude that the evidence sufficiently supports the factfinder’s conclusion that the statutory requirements for termination of parental rights were proved to a high degree of probability. See In re Maria C., 527 A.2d 318, 319 (Me.1987); In re John Joseph V., 500 A.2d 628, 629 (Me.1985). The same evidence necessarily supports the denial by the District Court of the motion for review of the final protection order. The remaining contentions are without merit and require no discussion.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 A.2d 155, 1987 Me. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sarrah-p-me-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack