Sheppard v. Sheppard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

85 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`While the standard of fitness required of parents is difficult to specify without being somewhat ambiguous, conduct which makes a parent unfit may be defined within limits. There is no statutory definition of the word "unfit." It therefore must be given its ordinary significance, having due regard to the context. In general, the word means unsuitable, incompetent, or not adapted for a particular use or service. As applied to the relation of rational parents to their child, the word usually although not necessarily imports something of moral delinquency. Parents who treat the child with cruelty or inhumanity, or keep the child in vicious or disreputable surroundings, are said to be unfit. Parents who abandon the child, or neglect or refuse, when able so to do, to provide proper or necessary support and education required by law, or other care necessary for the child's well being are said to be unfit. Violence of temper or inability or indisposition to control unparental traits of character or conduct, might constitute unfitness. So, also, incapacity to appreciate and perform the obligations resting upon parents might render them unfit, apart from other moral defects.'" Sheppard v. Sheppard, 230 Kan. 146, 153 , 630 P.2d 1121 (1981), (quoting In re Vallimont, 182 Kan. 334, 340 , 321 P.2d 190 [1958]), cert. denied 455 U.S. 919 (1982).”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Adoption of T.M.M.H. – Per Curiam · In Re RC

2. “"It is clear under our decisions and those of the United States Supreme Court that a natural parent's right to the custody of his or her children is a fundamental right which may not be disturbed by the State or by third persons, absent a showing that the natural parent is unfit. As we noted in In re Cooper, 230 Kan. 57 , 631 P.2d 632 (1981), a parent's right to the custody, care, and control of his or her child is a fundamental liberty right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. "The statute under consideration takes away that right. Fitness of a parent is no longer the criterion. If the trial court determines that the best interests of the child will be served by placing it with third persons, the court may do so. The parent need not consent, and he or she may be perfectly fit, willing, and able to care for and raise the child. No exceptional circumstances need exist. "... [The natural mother] cannot be denied that right for the sole reason that a court determines and concludes that someone other than a natural parent might do a better job of raising the child, thus furthering his `best interests.'”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re MML · 19 Kan. App. 2d 574 - In the Interest of Baby Boy N.

3. “"The best interests test was stated in Parish v. Parish, 220 Kan. 131, 132 , 551 P.2d 792 (1976), as follows: `In determining the right of custody of children between parents, the primary consideration is the best interest and welfare of the children, and all other issues are subordinate thereto.' See Patton v. Patton, 215 Kan. 377 , 524 P.2d 709 (1974); Dalton v. Dalton, 214 Kan. 805 , 522 P.2d 378 (1974); Moran v. Moran, 196 Kan. 380 , 411 P.2d 677 (1966). The Kansas courts have long applied the best interests of the child test in resolving custody disputes between two fit parents. "On the other hand, it has long been the rule that the parental preference doctrine prevails when the dispute is between a parent and a third person, unless the parent is found to be unfit. The rule is succinctly stated in Christlieb v. Christlieb, 179 Kan. 408, 409 , 295 P.2d 658 (1956), as follows: `[A] parent who is able to care for his children and desires to do so, and who has not been found to be an unfit person to have their custody in an action or proceeding where that question is in issue, is entitled to the custody of his children as against grandparents or others who have no permanent or legal right to their custody, even though at the time the natural parent seeks their custody such grandparents or others are giving the children proper and suitable care and have acquired an attachment for them.' "The Kansas Supreme Court has held that child custody is a fundamental right of a parent, ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re MML · In the Interest of M.M.L.