DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State, in Interest of Sm, 719 So. 2d 445.

134 citing documents.

  • State ex rel. A.V. 164 So. 3d 853 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also, State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State of La in the Interest of E. R. S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State ex rel. E.R.S. 141 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In re S.M., 98-922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State in the Interest of J. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State ex rel. J.B. 138 So. 3d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In re S.M., 98-922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. E.I.R. 130 So. 3d 360 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
    v. M.Y.S., where it stated that “a reasonable expectation of reformation is found to exist if the parent has cooperated with state officials and has shown improvement, although all of the problems that exist have not been eliminated.” The Court clarified this test in State in Interest of S.M., 98-922, p. 14 (La.10/20/98), , 452 stating that a court must ask whether a parent had "demonstrated that the behavior that led to the adjudication of dependency has been eliminated or significantly reduced
  • State ex rel. T.J. 124 So. 3d 484 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State in Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State v. In the Interest of L.J. 118 So. 3d 526 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State in Interest of S.M., et al., 98-0922 (La.1998), .
  • State in the Interest of I.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State ex rel. I.D. 87 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State in the Interest of P.M. & H.M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
    3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98–0922 (La.10/20/98)
  • State ex rel. P.M. 86 So. 3d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State in the Interest of D.P., M.P. & Z.P. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98)
  • State in the Interest of E.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98)
  • State ex rel. E.R. 63 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. H.A.S. 52 So. 3d 852 La. 2010
    After reviewing appellate court cases relying on that holding that placed too much emphasis of whether the parent had cooperated with OCS, we found the need to elaborate on that holding in State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), -51 .
  • State Ex Rel. Has 52 So. 3d 852 La. 2010
    After reviewing appellate court cases relying on that holding that placed too much emphasis of whether the parent had cooperated with OCS, we found the need to elaborate on that holding in State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), -51 .
  • State in the Interest of H.M.D. & J.J.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98)
  • State ex rel. H.M.D. 35 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State Ex Rel. Hmd 35 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State in the Interest of A.L.D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98)
  • State Ex Rel. Ald 21 So. 3d 1109 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. A.L.D. 21 So. 3d 1109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State, in the Interest of Hh 24 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    10/12/98), ("More than simply protecting parental rights, our judicial system is required to protect the children's rights to thrive and survive.") Additionally, we note that A.H.K.
  • State Ex Rel. Pap 4 So. 3d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Id.; State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. P.A.P. 4 So. 3d 182 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Id.; State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. D.L.R. 998 So. 2d 681 La. 2008
    hat children require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships with their parents or foster parents.” Very little is “as detrimental to a child’s sound development as uncertainty over whether he is to remain in his current ‘home,’ under the care of his parents or foster parents, especially when such uncertainty is prolonged.” State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922, p. 16, (La.10/20/98), .
  • State Ex Rel. Dlr 998 So. 2d 681 La. 2008
    State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922, p. 16, (La.10/20/98), .
  • State, in Interest of Cr 996 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
  • State in the Interest of D.L.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98)
  • State ex rel. D.L.R. 986 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State Ex Rel. Dlr 986 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State in the Interest of C.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    10/20/98), (citations omitted).
  • State ex rel. C.W. 980 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    State in Interest of S.M., 98-922, p. 10 (La.10/20/98), (citations omitted).
  • State Ex Rel. Cw 980 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    State in Interest of S.M., 98-922, p. 10 (La.10/20/98), (citations omitted).
  • State Ex Rel. Ddm 983 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    State in Interest of S.M., 98-0922, p. 10 (La.10/20/98), ; State in Interest of L.L.Z.
  • State ex rel. D.D.M. 983 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    State in Interest of S.M., 98-0922, p. 10 (La.10/20/98), ; State in Interest of L.L.Z.
  • State, in the Interest of Ra 944 So. 2d 1262 La. 2006
    State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922, p. 14 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel T.P.M. 947 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    State in Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), ; State in Interest of L.L.Z.
  • State ex rel. A.T.C. 947 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. A.R.S. 892 So. 2d 750 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    2 Cir. 2004), , quoting the supreme court in State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), , “a reasonable expectation of reformation is found to exist if the parent has cooperated with state officials and has shown improvement, although all the problems that exist have not been eliminated.” State in Interest of L.L.Z.
  • State ex rel. A.D.S. 888 So. 2d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. M.A.S. 873 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    In State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the concept of parental reformation with approval in the following passage: Prior to August 15, 1997, there was no statutory guidance in | ¡¡determining whether the parent had shown “reformation” sufficient to preserve family reunification as a viable option to termination
  • State 874 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    State in Interest of SM, 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. A.W. 860 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 pp. 14-15 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. C.J.B. v. B.C.B. 843 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    and K.K., 774 So.2d at 113 (quoting State in the Interest of J.A., 752 So.2d at 811 ); State in the Interest of S.M., 98 0922, p. 15 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. K.T. 841 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), , the Supreme Court stated: More than simply protecting parental rights, our judicial system is required to protect the children’s rights to thrive and survive.
  • State in Interest of JM 837 So. 2d 1247 La. 2003
    and K.K., 774 So.2d at 113 (quoting State in the Interest of J.A., 752 So.2d at 811); State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. J.M. 837 So. 2d 1247 La. 2003
    and K.K., 774 So.2d at 113 (quoting State in the Interest of J.A., 752 So.2d at 811); State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .
  • State ex rel. L.B. v. G.B.B. 831 So. 2d 918 La. 2002
    3231 , 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982); see also, State in the Interest of S.M., 98-0922 (La.10/20/98), .