In Re AR’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2020
13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Clark · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Raiford · Kemmerer v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Frankel · In re Morris
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Other considerations. — The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond .the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) Whether the court erred in finding that Mother failed to perform her parental duties pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a)(5). 9 (2) Whether the court erred in finding that termination would best serve the needs and welfare of the children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8). (3) Whether the court erred in finding that termination would best serve the needs and welfare of the children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). 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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Section 2511(a)(8) sets a 12-month time frame for a parent to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal by the court.”
2 later decisions 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.