In re Nikolas E.

720 A.2d 562 (1998)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Nikolas E.

Maine Supreme Judicial Court
720 A.2d 562 (1998)

Facts

Four-year-old Nikolas E. suffered from HIV. Nikolas’s parents were also HIV positive, and his sister had lost her life due to AIDS when she was four years old. Because Nikolas’s parents were divorced, he lived with his mother, who made medical decisions for him. Nikolas and his mother were under the care of a physician who alerted them to a clinical trial for treating HIV in children being conducted by another physician, Dr. John Milliken. Nikolas’s mother and sister had received treatment from this doctor before. Dr. Milliken recommended a new therapy called highly aggressive antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Nikolas’s mother opted not to pursue the treatment at that time, given her prior experience with the treatment her daughter was undergoing when the daughter died a painful death. Dr. Milliken filed a report with the referring physician and the Department of Human Services (the state) (petitioner) regarding the refusal of Nikolas’s mother and recommended that she voluntarily relinquish her parental rights and that decisions regarding Nikolas’s care should be taken from her. The state arranged for Nikolas’s mother to meet with Dr. Kenneth McIntosh, the director of an AIDS program at a children’s hospital and a Harvard professor of pediatrics. Dr. McIntosh explained that HAART was an experimental therapy. For this reason, Dr. McIntosh could not give any specific information on long-term side effects or benefits. Dr. McIntosh explained that because the United States Food and Drug Administration had hastened the approval of new AIDS medicines, the treatments were experimental, with studies being conducted even as medicines were being administered. Dr. McIntosh felt that Nikolas could benefit from the treatment, but he could not quantify the benefit or even speculate as to whether Nikolas would live longer as a result of the treatment. Although Nikolas’s mother declined the treatment, she remained open to it in the future and would comply now if the court ordered Nikolas to receive the therapy. The state filed a petition seeking custody of Nikolas so that he could undergo HAART. However, a trial court did not approve the petition. Nikolas’s guardian ad litem appealed the court’s decision and argued that Nikolas’s mother had placed Nikolas in a position of significant abuse or neglect.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wathen, C.J.)

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 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership