J.E. v. A.P.’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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The petitioner must establish his allegations in support of parental-rights termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re J.C. , 2007 ND 111 , ¶ 12, 736 N.W.2d 451 (citing Santosky v. Kramer , 455 U.S. 745 , 769 [ 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 ] (1982) ). Only if this elevated standard of proof is met does the district court have discretion under the statute to consider whether termination of parental rights would promote the child's welfare. Adoption of K.S.H. , 442 N.W.2d 417 , 420-21 (N.D. 1989) ("The statute uses the word 'may' which as ordinarily understood in a statute is permissive rather than mandatory and operates to confer discretion."). "The primary purpose of the Uniform Juvenile Court Act is to protect the welfare of the child and, thus, the best interest of the child is one factor to be considered in determining the necessity of terminating parental rights." Interest of D.S. , 325 N.W.2d 654 , 659 (N.D. 1982). A district court's discretion under the statute is not unlimited. For example, if the evidence establishes that denying a petition to terminate parental rights "would seriously affect [the children's] emotional well being," the district court would err if it denied the petition. Interest of D.R. , 525 N.W.2d 672 , 674 (N.D. 1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. B.H. (In Re Interest of B.H.)

2. “A district court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner, if its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasonable determination, or if it misinterprets or misapplies the law. An abuse of discretion is never assumed and must be affirmatively established, and this Court will not reverse a district court's decision merely because it is not the one it would have made had it been deciding the motion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. B.H. (In Re Interest of B.H.)

3. “does not abuse its discretion in denying a parental-termination petition unless the petitioner establishes that denying the petition would seriously affect the child's welfare.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. B.H. (In Re Interest of B.H.)