In re Dakota K. et al. (Errata)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Errata. Go to corrected Opinion
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2016 ME 30 Docket: Fra-15-388 Submitted On Briefs: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 16, 2016 Corrected: May 26, 2016 Panel: Reporter of Decisions ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. IN RE AIDEN DAKOTA K. et al. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court certified on February 16, 2016, is amended as follows: The caption has been corrected as follows: IN RE AIDEN DAKOTA K. et al. Paragraph 1 has been corrected as follows: [¶1] In this consolidated appeal, the mother of Aiden and Benjamin,1 Dakota K. and Trevor P. and the father of Carl, Daryl, and Benjamin Trevor P. and two other children appeal from a judgment of the District Court (Farmington, Carlson, J.) terminating their parental rights to their children pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) (2015) after a three-day trial. Regarding the mother, the court found that she is unwilling or unable to protect the children from jeopardy or take responsibility for them within a time reasonably calculated to 2 meet their needs, and it found that termination was in the children’s best interests. See id. § 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i), (ii). Regarding the father, the court made the same findings and additionally found that he had failed to make a good faith effort to rehabilitate and reunify with his children. See id. § 4055(B)(2)(b)(iv). Footnote 1 has been corrected as follows: 1 A pseudonyms is used herein to respect the privacy of the child. Footnote 2 has been renumbered as follows: 2 1 Although neither party is statutorily required to do so, the Department or a parent may request a case management conference to address reunification disagreements if an informal conference between all parties fails to resolve the issues. 22 M.R.S. § 4041(1-A)(A)(4) (2015). The original opinion on the Judicial Branch website has been replaced with the opinion as corrected.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
