In Re Damon M.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The permanency plan is an integral part of the statutory scheme designed to expedite the movement of Maryland’s children from foster care to a permanent living, and hopefully, family arrangement. It provides the goal toward which the parties and the court are committed to work. It sets the tone for the parties and the court and, indeed, may be outcome determinative. Services to be provided by the local social service department and commitments that must be made by the parents and children are determined by the permanency plan. And, because it may not be changed without the court first determining that it is in the child’s best interest to do so, the permanency plan must be in the child’s best interest. These are the reasons, no doubt, that the court is charged with determining the plan and with periodically reviewing it, evaluating all the while the extent to which it is being complied with.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Samone H. · 158 Md. App. 144 - In Re Ashley E.

2. “"(1) In developing a permanency plan for a child in an out-of-home placement, the local department shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child, including consideration of both in-State and out-of-state placements. The local department shall consider the following factors in determining the permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child: "(i) the child’s ability to be safe and healthy in the home of the child's parent; "(ii) the child’s attachment and emotional ties to the child's natural parents and siblings; "(iii) the child’s emotional attachment to the child’s current caregiver and the caregiver's family; "(iv) the length of time the child has resided with the current caregiver; "(v) the potential emotional, developmental, and educational harm to the child if moved from the child's current placement; and "(vi) the potential harm to the child by remaining in State custody for an excessive period of time. "(2) To the extent consistent with the best interests of the child in an out-of-home placement, the local department shall consider the following permanency plans, in descending order of priority: "(i) returning the child to the child's parent or guardian, unless the local department is the guardian; "(ii) placing the child with relatives to whom adoption, custody and guardianship, or care and custody, in descending order of priority, are planned to be granted; "(iii) adoption in the following descending order of priority: "1. by a curren”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Adoption/Guardianship of Cross H. · In Re Billy W.

3. “In In re Yve S. [ 373 Md. at 577-81 , 819 A.2d at 1046-48 ], quoting from In re Damon M., we ... delineated the requirements a trial court must follow when implementing a permanency plan: s¡5 s?; s¡; Section 3-826.1 [now codified as Section 3-823 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article] requires the court, not later than 11 months after a child found to be in need of assistance has been placed in foster care, see also Md.Code (1989, 1991 Repl.Vol., 1997 Cum. Supp.), § 501(m) of the Family Law Article, to hold a permanency planning hearing to determine the permanency plan for that child. § 3-826.1(a)(1) [now § 3 — 823(b)( 1)]. At that hearing, for each child in placement and in determining the plan, the court is required to make certain decisions and findings, § 3-826.1(c), [now § 3-823(e)] specifically, whether the child should be: returned to the parent or guardian, § 3-826.1(c)(1)(f) [now § 3-823(e)(l)(i)]; placed with relatives to whom adoption or guardianship is granted, § 3-826.1(c)(1)(h) [now § 3-823(e)(l)(ii)]; placed for adoption, § 3-826.l(c)(l)(iii) [now § 3-823(e)(l)(iii)]; [live independently], § 3-826.1(c)(l)(iv) [now § 3-823(e)(l)(vii)]; or because of the child’s special needs or circumstances, continued in placement on a permanent or long-term basis or for a specified period. § 3-826.l(c)(l)(v) and (vi) [now § 3-823(e)(l)(v) and (vi)]. Id. at 577-81, 819 A.2d at 1046-48 (additions in original). We explained: Section 3-826.1(1) [now § 3 — 823(h)] mandates”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Samone H. · In Re Karl H.