165 N.J. Super. 392 - Doe v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2011 · most notably 196 N.J. Super. 487 - Wilke v. Culp (1984), 117 Wash. 2d 460 - Schwebke v. Lutheran Social Services (1991)
38 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 Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform · Crescent Pk. Tenants Assoc. v. Realty Eq. Corp. of NY · Pascucci v. Vagott · 228 Pa. Super. 371 - Stapleton v. Dauphin County Child Care Service · State v. Fields
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This act lodged broad powers in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court to review all voluntary and most involuntary placements of children in foster homes, their removal from the foster homes or changes in their placement. In the discharge of this obligation, the court is authorized to hold a hearing to determine whether the placement or change in placement contemplated by DYFS is in the best interests of the child. [ Id. at 404 , 398 A. 2d 562 (emphasis added).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever (a) it appears that a court wherein a complaint has been proffered as provided in chapter 6 of Title 9 of the Revised Statutes, has entered a conviction against the parent or parents, guardian or person having custody and control of any child because of abuse, abandonment, neglect of or cruelty to such child; L (b) is omitted]; or (c) it appears that the best interests of any child under the care or custody of the Division of Youth and Family Services require that he be placed under guardianship; or (d) it appears that a parent or guardian of a child, following the acceptance of such child by the division pursuant to section 11 or 12 of P.L.1951, c. 138 (C. 30:4C-11 or 12), or following the placement or commitment of such child in the care of an authorized agency, whether in an institution or in a foster home, and notwithstanding the diligent efforts of such agency to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, has failed for a period of one year to remove the circumstances or conditions that led to the removal or placement of the child, although physically and financially able to do so, notwithstanding the division’s diligent efforts to assist the parent or guardian in remedying the conditions, and the additional services available from the division within program and fiscal constraints will not enable the child to be reunited with the parent or guardian: a petition setting forth the facts in the case, may be filed with the Family Part of the Chancery Divisi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen it appears that the child's best interests are likely to be subordinate to the interests of the parents or [the State's], independent representation [for the child] is required.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.