Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re S.L.

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1988No. Nos. 15717, 15725Published

1DissentHenderson, Justice

The majority opinion, after establishing that the law of this State requires evidence that is clear and convincing to justify findings of dependency and neglect and to support termination of parental rights, proceeds to reduce that relatively high standard to nothing. I dissented when this was done in In re K.C., 414 N.W.2d 616, 621-25 (S.D.1987) (Henderson, J., dissenting), and I must dissent today.

Clear and convincing evidence is that which is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing so as to allow the trier of fact to reach a clear conviction of the precise facts at issue without…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Shelton v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. Lehman Ex Rel. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. In re R. Z. F.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Blow v. LottmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1953

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API