Dupuy, Belinda v. Samuels, Bryan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that the potential threat of removal proceedings does not necessarily render a parent’s consent to a safety plan involuntary
• rejecting parents’ argument that state agency had coerced their consent by threatening to remove their children where the agency had the valid legal authority to do so
• agency had no right to threaten removing child from parents’ custody where it did not suspect the parents of child abuse
• “Because the safety plan is voluntary, no hearing of any kind is necessary; hearings are required for deprivations taken over objection, not for steps authorized by consent.”
• “Because [a] safety plan is voluntary, no hearing of any kind is necessary . . . .”
• “It is not a forbidden means of coercing a settlement to threaten merely to enforce one's legal rights”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).