Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Re Ackenhausen, 154 So. 2d 380.

72 citing documents.

In Re: J. W. R., D. C. R., and D. J. R. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
739, (1963), where it held that one $50 payment within a year of suit on a $1,440 annual support obligation could not prevent the child’s adoption under La.
Elio Motors, Inc. v. La. Motor Vehicle Comm'n 268 So. 3d 1132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Haynes , 375 So.2d at 106 , citing In re Ackenhausen , , (1963).
In Re: Adoption of E.F.F. by J.L.B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
Green v. Paul, []; In re Ackenhausen, []; In re Lafitte, 247 La.
In re Adoption of E.F.F. ex rel. J.L.B. 85 So. 3d 1286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
337 , (1947) ]; In re Ackenhausen, [ , (1963) ]; In re Lafitte, 247 La.
In re Washburn 819 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
In re Landry 702 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
(1963); Adoption of Edwards, (La.App.
Anderson v. Ramer 661 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
The Haynes court, however, reiterated the holding of , (1963), that "token" payment of a nominal sum would not prevent the nonconsensual adoption.
State in Interest of ML 660 So. 2d 830 La. 1995
In , (1963), we read a "just cause" exception into former La.Rev.Stat.
In re C.B. 643 So. 2d 1251 La. 1994
(1963); Roy v. Speer, 249 La.
In Re CB, Applying for Adoption 643 So. 2d 1251 La. 1994
(1963); Roy v. Speer, 249 La.
Tutorship of Shea 619 So. 2d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Nelson v. Burkeen Const. Co. 605 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
In Re Billeaud 600 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
EMW v. JPM 583 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Emw, Jr. v. Jpm 583 So. 2d 511 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
In Re Lambert 545 So. 2d 1122 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
In re Kuchler 513 So. 2d 374 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Thompson v. Fletcher 485 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
The jurisprudence has added these additional requirements: (1) failure to pay child support must have been without just cause, , (1963); and (2) the adoption must be in the best interest of the child, see Adoption of Latiolais
In Re RLV 484 So. 2d 206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State ex rel. Shroeder 470 So. 2d 250 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Wuertz v. Craig 458 So. 2d 1311 La. 1985
In re Ackenhausen, 244 La.730, (1963).
Ross v. Miles 430 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
In Re MDA 427 So. 2d 1334 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
In re Spillers 426 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
Blackburn v. Barrios 427 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
1 The Supreme Court in , took up the problem of defining failure to support under R.S.
In Re Glass Applying for Adoption 424 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
4th Cir. 1965); , (1963).
In re Brunet 408 So. 2d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
337 , (1947)] In re Ackenhausen, supra; [ , (1963)] In re LaFitte, 247 La.
In re Watts 395 So. 2d 922 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
In re Plaisance 394 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
1034 , (1966); , So.2d 380 (1963).
In Re Ragas 393 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
1034 , (1966); , (1963).
In Re Daboval 377 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
Adoption of Latiolais 376 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
1034 , (1966); , (1963); and the comment at 29 La.Law Review 178.
DeRosier v. Dean 378 So. 2d 588 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
(1963); Adoption of Latiolais, (La.App.
Haynes v. Mangham 375 So. 2d 103 La. 1979
739 , (1963) in which we held that one $50 payment within a year of suit on a $1440 annual support obligation could not prevent the child's adoption under R.S.
In re Adoption of Jarreau 373 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
State v. Jones 373 So. 2d 1331 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
Adoption of Edwards 369 So. 2d 210 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
1034 , (1966); , (1963); and the comment at 29 La.
State ex rel. Haynes 368 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
In the case of , (1963), the Supreme Court made the following observation: In construing the statute here under consideration which dispenses with consent in adoption proceedings under certain conditions, we are mindful of the above pronouncements, but we do not propose to give the statute such a strict interpretation
Blackwood v. Yount 350 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Edwards v. Deming 350 So. 2d 920 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Poynot v. Pfister 348 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
856 , (1965); , (1963); (La.App.
Adoption of Rapp 348 So. 2d 107 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
1034 , (1966); , (1963).
Steed v. McKenzie 344 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
In Re Jones 337 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Since the father failed to comply with the court order, his consent is not necessary unless noncompliance was justified within the rule established by , (1968).
In Re Brannon 340 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
He relies on the case of , (1963), in which the court construed the intent of the legislature in adopting LSA-R.S.
Matter of Adoption of McArthur 333 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Bertrand v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. 333 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Burson v. Lasseigne 337 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
(1963); In re LaFitte, 247 La.
Overruled Bailey v. Bailey 335 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Berry v. Berryhill 330 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
if the first and second or the first and third conditions exist: "(1) The spouse of the petitioner or the grandparent or grandparents or the mother or the father have been granted custody of the child by a court of competent jurisdiction and "(2) The other legitimate parent has refused or failed to comply with a court order of support for a period of one year or" In the case of , (1963) the court construed the second condition of the statute, quoted above, concerning the failure or refusal of th