Template:Did you know nominations/Santosky v. Kramer


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Santosky v. Kramer

 * ... that the Supreme Court ruled in Santosky v. Kramer that the burden of proof a state must exceed for terminating parental rights is clear and convincing evidence?


 * Comment: The anniversary of this ruling is March 24th, so it might be interesting to have it appear on the main page on that day.
 * Comment: The anniversary of this ruling is March 24th, so it might be interesting to have it appear on the main page on that day.

Created by Wugapodes (talk). Self-nominated at 04:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC).


 * Comment: Please forgive this incredibly nit-picky comment, but the Court didn't say that states must "exceed" the clear and convincing evidence standard. Rather, the Court held that States must support allegations by demonstrating "at least" clear and convincing evidence. Perhaps we can instead use this ALT hook:
 * ALT1: ... that the Supreme Court ruled in Santosky v. Kramer that states must demonstrate at least clear and convincing evidence before terminating parental rights?
 * Thanks in advance for your consideration. For the sake of full disclosure, I should also note that I am currently in the process of completing a GA review for this article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Review needed for ALT1. North America1000 15:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg approved Allt1  MPJ  -US 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)