Case ID: a2d_516/html/0948-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBERTS, Justice. GLASSMAN, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re HEATHER B. et al.
    Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
    Argued May 9, 1986.
    Decided Oct. 10, 1986.
    
      Peters & Randlett, Thomas P. Peters, II (orally), Lewiston, for appellant.
    Carmen L. Coulombe, (orally), Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for appellee.
    E. James Burke, Lewiston, guardian ad li-tem.
    Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN and SCOLNIK, JJ.
   ROBERTS, Justice.

The maternal grandmother of three minor children appeals from the judgments of the Androscoggin Probate Court denying her petitions for the adoption of her grandchildren. The thrust of appellant’s contention is that the evidence was insufficient to justify the decision of the custodian of the children, the Department of Human Services, to withhold its consent to the adoption. Because we decide in today’s decision in In Re Melissa C., 516 A.2d 946 (Me.1986), that the Probate Court has no authority to review the action of the department and cannot approve an adoption without the consent of the custodial agency, we conclude that a review of the sufficiency of the evidence is unnecessary.

The entry is:

Judgments affirmed.

McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, WATHEN, and SCOLNIK, JJ., concurring.

GLASSMAN, Justice,

concurring separately.

For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in In Re Melissa C., 516 A.2d 946, 947 (Me.1986) (Glassman, J. dissenting), I would hold that the Probate Court has the authority to review the action of the Department of Human Services. On the record before us, I would determine that the Probate Court did not err in finding that the petitioner failed to prove that the department’s withholding of consent was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious and contrary to the children’s best interests.