under the premise that the decree was fair, as it was based on the fulfilling of the burden of proof by the father and his second wife with "clear and convincing evidence.

She used the guidelines set out in the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to fight her case.

It was then clarified that in forma pauperis may be applied to civil cases only if state controls or intrusions on family relationships are involved.

[2] The Supreme Court decided that the family unit is considered so fundamental that its liberty interests should be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The fees the Court charged her for the record preparations was too high for the petitioner to pay and, determined to keep her parental rights, she asked for in forma pauperis.

Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham Cty, 452 U.S. 18, which stated that indigent defendants in a parental termination case are not required by the Constitution to be provided with counsel, but they should be determined by the circumstances.

The conflict then arose of whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution allowed a state to condition appeals made by indigent persons if a court decreed a termination of parental rights.

When making its decision, the Supreme Court looked at the situation and considered family a fundamental right of a citizen.

A 6-3 opinion decided that "just as a state may not block an indigent petty offender's access to an appeal afforded others, so Mississippi may not deny M.L.B., because of her poverty, appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence on which the trial court found her unfit to remain a parent.

"[1] The court stated that due process could not be halted by a lack of funds in a case if the termination of parental rights was at risk.

Before that case, only convicted felons sentenced to death had access to an appellate review if they were unable to pay for transcripts.

The other largely-influential case was Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971), which decided that any offence, even "quasi-criminal" ones in nature, may be appealed, regardless of financial means.

Appellate review is not always necessary, but if it is granted, the court must not bar litigants from fulfilling their appeal by a lack of funds in cases as grave as this one.

On family matters, cases like Boddie v. Connecticut and Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham City were cited as grounds for the decision.

's motives, as well, are questioned, as the petitioner may care less about due process and more about delaying the sting of termination of her parental rights.