150 Ohio App. 3d 612 - In Re Starkey’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably 177 Ohio App. 3d 246 - In Re D.H. (2008), In Re G.N. (2007)
108 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Seasons Coal Co. v. City of Cleveland · State v. Schiebel · 141 Ohio App. 3d 445 - In the Matter of Nice · 46 Ohio App. 3d 85 - Jones v. Lucas County Children Services Board · In re Wingo
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster care-givers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; {¶ 16} "(2) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; {¶ 17} "(3) The custodial history of the child, including whether the child has been in the temporary custody of one or more public children services agencies or private child placing agencies for twelve or more months of a consecutive twenty-two month period ending on or after March 18, 1999; {¶ 18} "(4) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of permanent custody to the agency; {¶ 19} "(5) Whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) of this section apply in relation to the parents and child.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“(B)(1) Except as provided in division (B)(2) of this section, the court may grant permanent custody of a child to a movant if the court determines at the hearing held pursuant to division (A) of this section, by clear and convincing evidence, that it is in the best interest of the child to grant permanent custody of the child to the agency that filed the motion for permanent custody and that any of the following apply: {¶ 37}”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a child is presumed abandoned when the parents of the child have failed to visit or maintain contact with the child for more than 90 days, regardless of whether the parents resume contact with the child after that period of 90 days.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.