In re Wachlin
Minnesota Supreme Court
309 Minn. 370, 245 N.W.2d 183 (1976)
- Written by Meredith Hamilton Alley, JD
Facts
Nancy Wachlin (defendant) was a single mother who received federal aid provided to families with children. Wachlin’s first child was placed for adoption. Wachlin’s second child, Timmy, had a serious language delay. Speech experts recommended that Timmy attend preschool and speech therapy, and they created a special program to teach Wachlin how to improve Timmy’s speech. Wachlin did not participate in the program and took Timmy to only a few speech-therapy appointments. Timmy was frequently absent from preschool or arrived late because Wachlin had slept in. On days when Timmy attended preschool, he wore ragged, dirty, inappropriate clothes. Wachlin told the preschool director that she had not placed Timmy for adoption because if she did not have a child, she would lose federal aid. A county agency (plaintiff) filed a petition alleging that Timmy was a neglected child. The trial court found that Timmy was neglected and that his best interests would be served in a stable, loving home. The trial court placed Timmy in the custody of the agency and gave the agency the discretion to decide whether to leave Timmy with Wachlin or place him with a foster family. Wachlin appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to find that Timmy was a neglected child.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (MacLaughlin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.