J.C. v. K.K.’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 577 So. 2d 565 - Padgett v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Services · 824 So. 2d 1000 - Department of Children and Families v. BB · 826 So. 2d 521 - Rathburn v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAM. · S.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services · 22 So. 3d 774 - JG v. Department of Children and Families
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the court is required to consider the least restrictive means, the least restrictive means test is not intended ‘to preserve a parental bond at the cost of a child’s future.’ Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.B., 824 So.2d 1000, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Since there is little or no bond to protect and there was never a parent-child relationship to reestablish, long-term relative placement was not in the best interest of the child and was not required by the “least restrictive means” test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The father’s belated attempts to become a good father amount to too little too late in terms of the least restrictive means test. The child’s interests are paramount over the father’s desire to now parent his child, where the child would have to remain in foster care for a substantial period of time to effectuate a reunion without harming the child further.”
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.