Sider v. Sider’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598 (1997), Langston v. Riffe (2000)
61 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 Santosky v. Kramer · Stanley v. Illinois · Michael v. Gerald D · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Ross v. Hoffman
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the length of time the child has been away from the biological parent; (2) the age of the child when care was assumed by a third party; (8) the possible emotional effect on the child of a change of custody; (4) the period of time which elapsed before the parent sought to reclaim the child; (5) the nature and strength of the ties between the child and the third party custodian; (6) the intensity and genuineness of the parent’s desire to have the child; (7) the stability and certainty as to the child’s future in the custody of the parent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““On remand, the circuit court should consider the following factors set forth in Ross v. Hoffman, supra, and any other relevant factors, in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist: ‘(1) the length of time the child has been away from the biological parent; ‘(2) the age of the child when care was assumed by the third party; ‘(3) the possible emotional effect on the child of a change of custody; ‘(4) the period of time which elapsed before the parent sought to reclaim the child; ‘(5) the nature and strength of the ties between the child and the third party custodian; ‘(6) the intensity and genuineness of the parent’s desire to have the child; and ‘(7) the stability and certainty as to the child’s future in the custody of the parent.’ “We listed other important factors in Turner [v. Whisted, 327 Md. 106 , 607 A.2d 935 (1992)]: ‘the stability of the child’s current home environment, whether there is an ongoing family unit, and the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs. An important consideration is the child’s past relationship with the putative father, (citation omitted). Finally, other factors might even include the child’s ability to ascertain genetic information for the purpose of medical treatment and genealogical history.’ 327 Md. at 116-17 [, 607 A.2d 935, 940 ]. We also stated in Monroe, supra: ‘Whether the child has established a relationship with a third party sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances, rebutting the presumption of custody in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Unlike awards of custody ... adoption decrees cut the child off from the natural parent, who is made a legal stranger to his offspring. The consequences of this drastic and permanent severing of the strongest and basic natural ties and relationships has led the Legislature and this Court to make sure, as far as possible, that adoption shall not be granted over parental objection unless that course is clearly justified. The welfare and best interests of the child must be weighed with great care against every just claim of an objecting parent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.