21 So. 3d 1109 - State Ex Rel. Ald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State in the Interest of J.A., 99-2905, pp. 7-9 (La. 1/12/00), 752 So.2d 806 , 810-11, our supreme court stated: In any case to involuntarily terminate parental rights, there are two private interests involved: those of the parents and those of the child. The parents have a natural, fundamental liberty interest to the continuing companionship, care, custody and management of their children warranting great deference and vigilant protection under the law, Lassiter v. Department of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981), and due process requires that a fundamentally fair procedure be followed when the state seeks to terminate the parent-child legal relationship. State in Interest of Delcuze, 407 So.2d 707 (La.1981). However, the child has a profound interest, often at odds with those of his parents, in terminating parental rights that prevent adoption and inhibit establishing secure, stable, long-term, and continuous relationships found in a home with proper parental care. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Serv.'s Agency, 458 U.S. 502 , 102 S.Ct. 3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982) ; see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La. 10/20/98), 719 So.2d 445 , 452. In balancing these interests, the courts of this state have consistently found the interest of the child to be paramount over that of the parent. See, e.g., State in the Interest of A.E., 448 So.2d 183 , 186 (La.App. 4 Cir.1984) ; State in the Interest of Driscoll, 410 So.2d 255 , 258 (La.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 269 So. 3d 881 - In re State I.A. · In re State I.A.

2. “We i’ecognize that, as a general rule, a parent cannot avoid providing financial support simply because she has not been ordered to do so in a case plan. See State in re B.H. v. A.H., 42,864 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/24/07), 968 So.2d 881 . Still, without some proof that C.T.D. was able to provide financial support to A.L.D. and was unwilling to do so, La.Ch.Code art. 1015(4)(b) cannot be used as a basis for termination of parental rights See State ex rel A.T., 06-501 (La.7/6/06), 936 So.2d 79 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 So. 3d 1235 - State ex rel. M.C.