In Re KD’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The real issue in the case, then, is not so much whether the children should be removed, as whether the mother should be protected from her own assertion of a constitutional right because the assertion of that right may impede the efforts of the courts to return the children to her care. Citing the legislative goal of keeping the family together, the department would require the psychological examination. We regard such a concern as well intentioned, but misplaced. Compelling a psychological examination in this context is nothing more or less than social engineering in derogation of constitutional rights, and where, as here, there is an abundance of information about the ability of the parent to be a parent, there is no state interest, much less a compelling state interest, in the ordering of parental psychological examinations. In fact, we find such state intervention frightening in its Orwellian aspect. It is one thing for the mother to agree to psychological evaluation and to voluntarily undergo instruction in self-improvement, but it is quite another for the state, in the exercise of paternalistic might, to order a psychological evaluation in violation of the mother’s constitutional rights, presumably upon pain of imprisonment for contempt of court. The constitution is not a mere policy statement to be overridden by a sociological scheme for the improvement of society. The mother, alas, may be her own worst enemy and her shortcomings as a parent may result in the permanen”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 229 - In Re: D.S., Appeal of: T.S.

2. “The Juvenile Act does not expressly provide for a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation during a dependency proceeding. Moreover, the purposes of the Act are: (1) To preserve the unity of the family wherever possible or to provide another alternative permanent family when the unity of the family cannot be maintained. (1.1) To provide for the care, protection, safety and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of this chapter. [[Image here]] (3) To achieve the foregoing purposes in a family environment whenever possible, separating the child from parents only when necessary for his welfare, safety or health or in the interests of public safety. (4) To provide means through which the provisions of this chapter are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights recognized and enforced. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301(b).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 229 - In Re: D.S., Appeal of: T.S.

3. “We believe, under the circumstances of this case, that the best interests of the children can be maintained without compelling appellant to submit to a psychological evaluation. Our thorough evaluation of the trial court opinion and the record reveals a noticeable lack of support for subjecting appellant to this evaluation. A mere allegation that appellant has been taking medication for a mental condition and passed out on one occasion as a result of the medication is insufficient, in our minds, to force upon her an unwanted psychological evaluation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 229 - In Re: D.S., Appeal of: T.S.