46 Va. App. 145 - Schwartz v. Schwartz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any case in which custody or visitation of a minor child is at issue pursuant to § 20-124.2, whether in a circuit or district court, the records concerning a parent, kept by any licensed mental health care provider and any information obtained during or from therapy shall be privileged and confidential. B. In any case in which custody or visitation of a minor child is at issue pursuant to § 20-124.2, whether in a circuit or district court, a mental health care provider licensed in the Commonwealth may not be required to testify on behalf of or against a parent or any of the parent's adult relatives, and may do so only with the advance written consent of the parent. If the mental health care provider testifies, such testimony shall be limited to the custody or visitation case in question, and the provider's records and notes regarding that parent shall be admissible in the court proceeding. However, the court may order a licensed mental health care provider to testify on matters specifically related and limited to suspicion of an abused or neglected child as defined in § 63.2-100 of the Code of Virginia. C. Nothing in this section shall supercede the provisions of § 63.2-1509 of the Code of Virginia related to the required reporting of suspicion of an abused or neglected child. D. This section shall not apply to mental health care providers who have conducted or are conducting an independent mental health evaluation pursuant to”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Va. App. 192 - Rice v. Rice · Cage v. Cage

2. “the advance written consent of the parent. " . . . In addition, Code § 20-124.3:1 provides no exception permitting the trial court to order disclosure for the broad purpose of determining the best interests of the child. Id. at 156-58, 616 S.E.2d at 65 -66 (quoting Code § 20-124.3:1) (emphasis in original). We also noted that "[n]othing in the language of Code § 20-124.3:1 as enacted requires that the parent must have been a patient in order to invoke the privilege.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Va. App. 192 - Rice v. Rice

3. “The language in Code § 20-124.3:1 is plain. . . . Subsection (B) provides that the mental health care provider "may not be required to testify on behalf of or against a parent or any of the parent's adult relatives" without "the advance written consent of the parent. " . . . In addition, Code § 20-124.3:1 provides no exception permitting the trial court to order disclosure for the broad purpose of determining the best interests of the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 49 Va. App. 192 - Rice v. Rice