163 Md. App. 1 - In Re Blessen H.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Both TPR and CINA proceedings involve the State’s intervention into the parent-child relationship. Both, moreover, have the overarching goal of safeguarding the best interest of the child. Yet, the specific purpose of each proceeding is quite different from the other. CINA proceedings are designed "[t]o provide for the care, protection, safety, and mental and physical development” of a child found to be in need of assistance, “[t]o conserve and strengthen the child’s family ties [.]” These proceedings do not seek to sever the parent-child relationship. Though the parent and child are sometimes separated for the child's welfare, the desired goal is reunification[.] Even once a child is declared CINA and is placed in an out-of-home placement, a permanency plan hearing must be held within 11 months. At this hearing, the court determines the child’s permanency plan, which includes, as the first option, “[rleunification with the parent or guardian[.]” TPR proceedings, by contrast, are initiated only when the " ‘prima facie presumption that a child’s welfare will be best served in the care and custody of its parents' ” is overcome by a " 'sliow[ing] that the natural parent is unfit to have custody, or exceptional circumstances make parental custody detrimental to the best interests of the child.’ ” TPR proceedings are initiated as a last resort and only after efforts to reunify the parent and child, who likely has previously been adjudicated a CINA, have failed. In sum, the cases r”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Karl H.

2. “Maryland has consistently echoed the Supreme Court, declaring a parent’s liberty interest in raising a child a fundamental one that cannot be taken away unless clearly justified”); see also In re Blessen H., 163 Md.App. 1, 17 , 877 A.2d 161 (2005) (clarifying that the process due in a TPR proceeding is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 189 Md. App. 411 - In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Chaden M.

3. “‘prima facie presumption that a child’s welfare will be best served in the care and custody of its parents' ” is overcome by a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Karl H.