In re Alexander C.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the respondent, rather than the commissioner, created the circumstances that caused and perpetuated the lack of an ongoing relationship between the respondent and [the child].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Conn. App. 248 - In re Carla C. · 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 7076 - In Re Amber S., (June 4, 2002)

2. “[d]uring his incarceration, the respondent made no attempts to develop a relationship with [the child]. We are not persuaded that he could not develop such a relationship simply because [a] protective order prohibited him from doing so. 22 ... [T]he respondent made no attempt to modify the court's protective order to one of supervised visitation, an action that occurs with a fair amount of frequency in family cases in which criminal charges are pending. In our view, to expect such an affirmative step on the part of the respondent does not require him to make extraordinary and heroic efforts.... Certainly, the absence of the respondent from [the child's] life prevents him from taking even the most minimal steps of parenting. His absence may have prevented him from providing a home and other life necessities, but it did not prevent him from expressing interest in the health, care and well-being of the child during that absence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Daniel M., (Aug. 27, 2002) · 167 Conn. App. 248 - In re Carla C.

3. “Even where the parent professes [positive] feelings ... the parent's perpetuation of the lack of a relationship by failing to use available resources to seek visitation or otherwise maintain contact with the child may establish the lack of an ongoing parent-child relationship.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Conn. App. 248 - In re Carla C. · 178 Conn. App. 195 - In re Jacob W.