768 So. 2d 628 - State Ex Rel. Ms’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Santosky v. Kramer · Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County North Carolina · Lehman Ex Rel. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency · State Ex Rel. Ja · 719 So. 2d 445 - State, in Interest of Sm
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.
“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, State ex rel. J.A., 99-2905 (La.1/12/00), 752 So.2d 806 ; 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 ex rel. J.A., supra; 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. State ex rel. J.A., supra; Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Services 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. State ex rel. J.A., supra; See, e.g., State in the Interest of S.M., 719 So.2d at 452 ; State in the Interest of A.E., 448 So.2d 183, 186 (La.App. 4 ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.