Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Tiffee v. Tiffee, 223 So. 2d 840.

47 citing documents.

In re Adoption of M. L. D. 271 So. 3d 236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
The supreme court has acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary to separate siblings, Tiffee v. Tiffee , , (1969) ; and, where it is in the best interest of the children to be separated, courts have approved such arrangements.
In Re: Applying for the Agency Adoption of M.L. D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
The supreme court has acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary to separate siblings, So.2d 840 (1969); and, where it is in the best interest of the children to be separated, courts have approved such arrangements.
Sanders v. Sanders 923 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
Generally, “the welfare of children is best served by leaving them together, so they can have the full benefit of companionship and affection.” Ho wze v. Howze, 99-0852, p. 3 (La.5/26/99), ; , (1969); Richardson v. Richardson, 01-0777, p. 14 (La.App.
Walker v. Walker 880 So. 2d 956 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Howze, supra, -388 , (1969).
Mills v. Hardy 842 So. 2d 443 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
113 , (1969), which also dealt with the children’s parents.
Hoskins v. Hoskins 814 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
The supreme court has acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary to separate siblings, , (1969); and, where it is in the best interest of the child or children to be separated, courts have approved of such arrangements.
Richardson v. RICHARDSON (BLACKMAR) 802 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
-388 , (1969); Howze v. Howze, 99-0852, p. 3 (La.5/26/99), ; (La.App.
Kyle v. Kyle 780 So. 2d 1241 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
The supreme court has acknowledged that it is sometimes necessary to separate siblings, , (1969); and, where it is in the best interest of the child or children to be separated, courts have approved of such arrangements.
Shaffer v. Shaffer 808 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Howze v. Howze 735 So. 2d 619 La. 1999
Howze v. Howze 727 So. 2d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Lee v. Davis 579 So. 2d 1130 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Utz v. Kienzle 574 So. 2d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Bergeron v. Bergeron 492 So. 2d 1193 La. 1986
382 , (1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Gilcrease v. Gilcrease 438 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
While this was a proper factor to consider because of the legal holdings that the separation of children should be avoided whenever possible [ , (1969)], this factor should have been considered at the point when the issues were determined prior to the hearing rather than only from the close of the evidence.
Wallace v. Wallace 420 So. 2d 1326 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Theriot v. Huval 413 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
(1969): "[1] The separation of children of a family, though sometimes necessary, is a custodial disposition that courts seek to avoid.
Larkin v. Larkin 386 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
App. 1 Cir. 1974, ; see also Tiffee v. Tiffee, 1969, , .
Latino v. Latino 378 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Heymann v. Lewis 414 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Pace v. Pace 372 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
Doyle v. Doyle 371 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
603, (1955); , (1969); (La.
Hays v. Hays 365 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
State Ex Rel. Killman v. Gurley 354 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Languirand v. Languirand 350 So. 2d 973 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Bushnell v. Bushnell 348 So. 2d 1315 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Schramm v. Simpson 343 So. 2d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
Stevens v. Stevens 340 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Johnson v. Johnson 331 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Fontenot v. Fontenot 327 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
LeBouef v. LeBouef 325 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Caraway v. Caraway 321 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Swann v. Young 311 So. 2d 617 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
603 , (1955) , (1969); writ refused 249 La.
Pourciau v. Pourciau 307 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Fulco v. Fulco, supra; Estes *813 v. Estes, supra; , (1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Nethken v. Nethken 307 So. 2d 563 La. 1975
Gulino v. Gulino 303 So. 2d 299 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Jordan v. Jordan 294 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Fulco v. Fulco, supra; Estes v. Estes, supra; , (1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Whitfield v. Whitfield 295 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Earnest v. Earnest 286 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
[ , (1969)] (4) "Upon appellate review, the determination of the trial judge in child custody matters is entitled to great weight.
Malone v. Malone 271 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Rayner v. Rayner 263 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1969); Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Nolte v. Nolte 258 So. 2d 118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
When feasible, a court should shape its orders to maintain family solidarity.” , (1969).
Hebert v. Hebert 255 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Fulco v. Fulco 254 So. 2d 603 La. 1971
(1969) ; Decker v. Landry, 227 La.
Couty v. Ayres 248 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
(1969), the Supreme Court, in discussing this subject, stated at page 843: “The separation of children of a family, though sometimes necessary, is a custodial disposition that courts seek to avoid.
Estes v. Estes 244 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Nugent v. Nugent 232 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
App. 4 Cir. 1963); , (1969).