From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
State ex rel. LM
Louisiana Court of Appeal
57 So. 3d 518 (2011)
LM (defendant) was the mother of five sons, ranging from a 15-year-old to four-year-old twins. LM’s income came from child support, Social Security, and food stamps. With budgeting, the income would have been enough to provide basic necessities for the children. However, LM did not budget and often sold the food stamps for cash to play bingo. Government officials became aware that LM’s children might be neglected and began checking on them. Although LM moved frequently to avoid issues with rent payments, the family had shelter and functioning utilities. However, (1) the home frequently had a significantly bad odor, (2) the home was unsanitary and contained dangerous items within reach of the young children, (3) the children did not always have enough food, (4) the children often did not have clean or adequate clothing, and (5) the children repeatedly missed school. Further, the younger children were routinely cared for by their 10-year-old brother whether LM was home or not. For months, government officials attempted to work with LM to budget her resources and to otherwise provide adequate care for her children. However, LM seemed to believe that providing a shelter for the children was good enough and did not make any significant changes to her parenting or the children’s care. After six months, a formal hearing was held in juvenile court, and LM was ordered to cooperate with the government’s plan to improve the children’s care. But LM failed to follow that order, and the officials received a complaint that LM was leaving the children alone at home to go play bingo. At that point, the district attorney (plaintiff) filed a petition to remove the children from the home. The court ruled that the four youngest children should be removed from LM’s care. Relatives agreed to care for the 10-year-old and the six-year-old, and the four-year-old twins were placed in the custody of their biological father. The court’s order was directed only at the children’s living situation and did not take away LM’s right to continue to be the children’s legal parent. LM appealed the removal of her children.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 619,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.