In re K.C.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Respondent] also requested in April 2014 to visit with Karl, but this request was denied based on the decision of Karl's therapist. These actions are not consistent with abandonment as defined under North Carolina law. Furthermore, the fact that Respondent did not visit Karl between 10 April 2014 and the 4 May 2015 hearing cannot be taken as evidence of abandonment. The trial court's findings indicate that Respondent was denied visitation during that period because "the Petitioner declined her request on the grounds that the child's therapist determined that visits should be suspended indefinitely...." Thus, this lack of contact was not voluntary and therefore cannot support a finding that Respondent intended to abandon Karl. See In re T.C.B. , 166 N.C. App. 482 , 486-87, 602 S.E.2d 17 , 20 (2004) (holding that trial court's conclusion of abandonment was not supported by its findings regarding lack of visits given that respondent's attorney instructed him not to have any contact with child and subsequent protection plan disallowed visitation).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 258 N.C. App. 273 - In re: K.C.

2. “the Petitioner declined her request on the grounds that the child's therapist determined that visits should be suspended indefinitely....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 258 N.C. App. 273 - In re: K.C.