In re Hannah S. (Errata)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Errata. Go to corrected Opinion
Download PDF
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Decision: 2016 ME 32 Docket: Han-15-426 Submitted On Briefs: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 18, 2016 Corrected: May 26, 2016 Panel: Reporter of Decisions ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HUMPHREY, JJ. IN RE DAPHNE HANNAH S. ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court certified on February 18, 2016, is amended as follows: The caption has been corrected as follows: IN RE DAPHNE HANNAH S. Paragraph 1 has been corrected as follows: [¶1] The father of Daphne1 Hannah S. appeals from a judgment of the District Court (Ellsworth, Mallonee, J.) terminating his parental rights pursuant to 22 M.R.S. § 4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2) (2015). The father argues that the court impermissibly based its decision terminating his parental rights on his incarceration. Additionally, the father argues that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to make a meaningful effort at reunifying the father with the child. 2 Footnote 1 has been corrected as follows: 1 A pseudonyms is used herein to respect the privacy of the child. Footnotes 2-5 have been renumbered as follows: 2 1 We note that the court’s findings are unusually brief, albeit sufficient to satisfy the requirements of M.R. Civ. P. 52(a). See In re Jazmine L., 2004 ME 125, ¶ 13, 861 A.2d 1277. Although we respect the court’s efficiency, more detailed findings would have better advised the parties and our appellate review of the basis for the court’s decision. 3 2 The court made no finding, and the record contains no evidence, as to the specific nature of the trauma. 4 3 Suboxone is a prescription drug used to treat drug addiction by opiate replacement therapy. Individual doses of Suboxone are administered orally, often in the form of dissolving strips. 5 4 The Department also brought termination proceedings against the child’s mother. The mother consented to termination of her parental rights, conditional on termination of the father’s rights, at the July 2015 hearing. 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.
