Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

In re Jeffrey E.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
557 A.2d 954 (Me. 1989)


Facts

Maine’s Department of Human Services (the Department) (plaintiff) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Linda E. and her husband, James E. (defendants), as to their infant son, Jeffrey E., whose health was placed in jeopardy because Linda and James routinely failed to provide Jeffrey with medication and therapy to treat his lingering pneumonia. Jeffrey was hospitalized several times due to his pneumonia. Each time Jeffrey returned home from the hospital, Linda, the family’s primary caretaker, failed to provide his medication, even with the assistance of a nurse from a home-health agency. James was a passive parent who did not contribute in any meaningful way to rearing Jeffrey. The Department temporarily removed Jeffrey from Linda and James’s custody and placed Jeffrey in foster care, where Jeffrey thrived emotionally and developmentally. After a hearing, the trial court found that it was not in Jeffrey’s best interests to be returned to Linda and James. Subsequently, the Department attempted to reunite Jeffrey with Linda and James through three written service agreements that addressed the family’s health, discipline, and structure, as well as ways to stimulate Jeffrey’s learning and development. Linda and James failed to comply with the plans, however, and the Department discontinued reunification efforts and petitioned to terminate Linda and James’s parental rights. The trial court terminated the parental rights of both Linda and James, who appealed, arguing that the trial court’s order was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Clifford, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.