they contend that if they allow for free transcripts in a civil appeal in this one case, it will be applied too liberally to other civil cases. There is also issue over M.L.B.'s claims that she should be protected under Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, as there is no clear explanation how they apply. Also, the Due Process Clause does not state that a state is even obliged to provide for an appeal. Furthermore, the petitioner has gone through an entire court process that was provided for her, ensuring her due process. The state's duty to M.L.B. has thus been fulfilled. M.L.B.'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. The majority cited irrelevant Supreme Court that apply to criminal, not civil, cases. Aftermath The ruling opened the doors for the destitute to fight for their parental rights. During the 1990s, poverty levels hit remarkable lows, but divorce rates remained high. References External links http://works.bepress.com/lloyd_anderson/9/ http://www.ncjj.org/PDF/Snapshots/1996/vol1_no7_terminationparentalrights.pdf http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/mlbvslj.html United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court 1996 in United States case law United States Fourteenth Amendment case law