In Re Jonathan M.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably 31 Cal. 4th 396 - In Re Zeth S. (2003), 104 Cal. App. 4th 1401 - Orange County Social Services Agency v. R.S. (2002)
30 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 Loghry v. Loghry · 13 Cal. 4th 952 - In Re Sade C. · Orange County Social Services Agency v. Sheri W. · 33 Cal. App. 4th 1158 - Robin v. v. SUPERIOR COURT · In Re Monica C.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(A) Maintaining contact between parent and minor through collect telephone calls. “(B) Transportation services, where appropriate. “(C) Visitation services, where appropriate. “(D) Reasonable services to extended family members or foster parents providing care for the minor if the services are not detrimental to the minor.” (§ 361.5, subd. (e)(1), italics added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]his court routinely accepts evidence per Code of Civil Procedure section 909 in juvenile dependency cases to expedite just and final resolution for the benefit of the children involved.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The Legislature has listed the chief factors to consider in the detriment assessment in the statute itself: the minor's age, the degree of bonding between parent and child, the length of the parent's sentence or the nature of her treatment, the `nature of the crime or illness,' the detriment to the minor if services are not offered, the views of minors 10 years of age or older, and 'any other appropriate factors' (Italics added.) But because this last phrase is set off by a comma, we assume it was intended to modify all the preceding phrases. Consequently, distance or difficulty of travel could certainly be considered as factors with respect to transportation and visitation services. "But the way the statute is drafted, distance cannot stand on its own, as do the specific phrases mentioned ahead of the words, `other appropriate factors.' And this makes perfect sense. An incarcerated parent located one mile past the court's fifty-mile order should clearly be treated equally with a parent one mile closer. A parent convicted of a violent crime against the child might be denied reunification services entirely, no matter how close the child lived to the prison. A child who has one parent serving a life sentence without possibility of parole ten miles away should hardly receive more visitation than the child's other parent serving a six-month sentence sixty miles away. In short, the court may not abdicate its responsibility to create a reasonable visitation and transportation orde”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.