In Re NC’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In appeals involving termination of parental rights, our scope of review is broad. In the Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d 327, 329 (Pa.Super.1998). We consider all the evidence as well as the hearing court's factual and legal determinations. Id. Our standard of review, however, is limited to determining whether the decree of the hearing court is supported by competent evidence and whether the court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the children. Adoption of Atencio, 539 Pa. 161 , 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994); In re Child M., 452 Pa.Super. 230 , 681 A.2d 793 (1996), appeal denied sub nom. Child M. v. Smith, 546 Pa. 674 , 686 A.2d 1307 (1996). However, if competent evidence supports the court's findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result. Atencio, supra .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 23 - In re C.G. · In Re LSG

2. “(a) General Rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: * * * * (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 23 - In re C.G. · In Re CG

3. “In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” It is well established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants termination.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re A.R.M.F. · In Re ARMF