act in accord with the dictates of the Constitution — and, in particular, in accord with the Due Process Clause”); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) (concluding that although a state may choose whether it will institute any given welfare program, it must operate whatever programs it does establish subject to the protections of the Due Process Clause); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18, 76 S.Ct. 585, 590, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (stating that while there is no constitutional right to appellate review, states that do grant appellate review must conduct proceedings in accordance with Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses). 17 .Evitts, 469 U.S. at 400-01, 105 S.Ct. at 838. 18 . Id.; see also Santosky, 455 U.S. at 753, 102 S.Ct. at 1394 (<HOLDING>). 19 . Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 24-25, 101 S.Ct.
holding that state intervention to terminate the relationship between a parent and child must be accomplished by procedures meeting the requisites of the due process clause recognizing the fundamental liberty interest a parent has in his or her child and concluding that the state must provide a parent with fundamentally fair procedures including a clear and convincing evidentiary standard when seeking to terminate parental rights holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause holding that the requisites for in loco parentis status are the actual care and custody of a child by a nonparent who assumes parental duties because the parent  generally due to his or her absence  is unable or unwilling to care for the child holding that procedural due process does not require the jury to be instructed that a reasonable relationship must exist between the amounts of compensatory and exemplary damages