green
Positive treatment
Trending · 89 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 4×
56.6 score
“certain fundamental rights are protected under the u.s. constitution, and among those rights are a parent's 14th amendment liberty interest in raising his or her children as he or she sees fit, without undue interference by the state.”
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re Shirley B.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the burden is on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under 9-101(b).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Cadence B.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the burden is 158 on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under 9-101(b).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
John A. Ex Rel. A.A. v. Board of Education
certain fundamental rights are protected under the u.s. constitution, and among those rights are a parent's 14th amendment liberty interest in raising his or her children as he or she sees fit, without undue interference by the state.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re: O.P.
the burden is on the parent previously having been found to have abused or neglected his or her child to adduce evidence and persuade the court to make the requisite finding under 9-101(b).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: K.B.
(9×)
also: Cited "see"
If there are no errors of law or clearly erroneous findings of fact, we will reverse a determination of the juvenile court “only if there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003) (citing Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119, 126 , 372 A.2d 231, 234 (1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: T.K.
In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 572 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1043 (2003); In re Billy W., 386 Md. at 685 , 874 A.2d at 429 (“[T]he General Assembly has enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme to ascertain whether a child is in need of assistance due to his or her parents’ inability or unwillingness to care for him or her.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re: S.F.
In re Elrich S., 416 Md. 15 , 30–31, 5 A.3d 27 , 35–36 (2010) (“In a juvenile delinquency matter . . . the [juvenile] court’s ultimate decision, however, will not be disturbed unless ‘there has been a clear abuse of discretion.’”) (quoting In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003)) (other citations omitted); see also Meyer v. State, 445 Md. 648, 663 , 128 A.3d 147, 156 (2015) (applying the abuse of discretion standard of review to conditions of probation in a criminal matter).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
E.N. v. T.R.
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
In In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 565 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1038 (2003), this Court explained: “Certain fundamental rights are protected under the U.S. Constitution, and among those rights are a parent’s Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in raising his or her children as he or she sees fit, without undue influence by the State.” (Footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: R.S.
(2×)
The Court of Special Appeals reasoned that (1) “placement with a parent is not a placement ‘preliminary to a possible adoption’” because biological parents do not have the ability to “adopt” their own children; and (2) “placement with a parent is not a ‘placement within foster care[]’” because foster care refers to the placement of children “out of the homes of their biological parents.” Id. at 360, 215 A.3d at 405 (citing In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 574 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1044 (2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dept of H&W v. Does I
See In re Ashley S., 66 A.3d 1022, 1037 (Md. 2013); In re Yve S., 819 A.2d 1030, 1049 (Md. 2003); In re Care and Protection of Lloyd, No. 01-P-900, 2002 WL 21725 , at *1 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002). 1 We agree with these states that the abuse of discretion standard should govern review of a magistrate court’s decision to accept or reject the Department’s proposed permanency plan.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Burak v. Burak
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 586 , 819 A.2d at 1051 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cabrera v. Mercado
“Before finding an abuse of discretion we would need to agree that, ‘the decision under consideration [is] well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.’ ” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 583-84 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1049 (2003) (quoting In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598, 347 Md. 295, 312-13 , 701 A.2d 110, 118-19 (1997) (some internal citations omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. State
(2×)
In Re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 565 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1038-39 (2003) (discussing the fundamental rights of a parent in relation to their child).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roy v. Dackman
(2×)
In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 615-16 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1068 (2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kusi v. State
(2×)
For example, we have articulated “three distinct aspects of review in child custody disputes.” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003), quoting Davis v. Davis, 280 Md. 119, 125 , 372 A.2d 231, 232-33 , cert. denied, 434 U.S. 939 , 98 S.Ct. 430 , 54 L.Ed.2d 299 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shannon v. Fusco
(2×)
Pursuant to Rule 5-702, 22 “[ejxpert testimony may be admitted, in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Likewise, in Blackwell v. Wyeth, 408 Md. 575 , 971 A.2d 235 (2009), we opined, when “ ‘complex medical issue[s]’ ... are in question, we have required a specificity of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education for qualification.” Id. at 623 , 971 A.2d at 264 , quoting In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 615-16 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1068 (2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Adoption of Jayden G.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Indeed, “[o]ne need not wander far into the thickets of family law before running into situations and circumstances where application of an absolute right of the parent would fail to produce a just result.” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 568 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1040 (2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Ashley S.
See In re: Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D., Jr., 412 Md. 442, 464 , 987 A.2d 536, 549 (2010); In re: Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 594 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1055 (2003) (quoting In re: Barry E., 107 Md.App. 206, 220 , 667 A.2d 931, 938 (1995)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Adoption/Guardianship of Cross H.
After a child committed to the local department’s custody enters an out-of-home placement, the juvenile court must hold a hearing within 11 months “to determine the permanency plan for [that] child.” CJ § 3-823(b)(l)(i). “[T]he purpose of a permanency plan is to set the direction in which the parent, agencies, and the court will work in terms of reaching a satisfactory conclusion,” regarding the best interests of the child in questions. 5 In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 582 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1049 (2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Adoption of Sean M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Rather, we have reaffirmed consistently that the State’s interest in protecting the best interests of the child “ ‘takes precedence over the fundamental right of a parent to raise his or her child.’ ” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 569-70 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1041 (2003) (quoting Wolinski v. Browneller, 115 Md.App. 285, 300-02 , 693 A.2d 30, 37-38 (1997)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miller v. Mathias
“Before finding an abuse of discretion we would need to agree that, ‘the decision under consideration [is] well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.’” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 583-84 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1049 (2003) (quoting In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598, 347 Md. 295, 312-13 , 701 A.2d 110, 118-19 (1997) (some internal citations omitted)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Adoption of Sean M.
In re Adoption of Victor A., 386 Md. 288, 297 , 872 A.2d 662, 667 (2005) (citing In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hospital of Silver Spring, Inc.
(2×)
While the abuse of discretion standard appreciates that "[q]uestions within the discretion of the trial court are much better decided by trial courts than by appellate courts," In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003), the phrase "standard of review" suggests that appellate courts nevertheless have some duty to review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Ta'Niya C.
(2×)
Id. (quoting In re Yve S, 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003)) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Elrich S.
(2×)
The hearing court's ultimate decision, however, will not be disturbed unless "there has been a clear abuse of discretion." In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Joseph N.
(2×)
We elaborated on the purpose of permanency plans and periodic reviews in In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 582 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1049 (2003): As In re Damon M. observes, the purpose of a permanency plan is to set the direction in which the parent, agencies, and the court will work in terms of reaching a satisfactory conclusion to the situation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Adoption/guardianship of Rashawn H.
(2×)
See In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705-06 , 782 A.2d 332, 342-43 (2001); In re Yve S, 373 Md. 551, 570-71 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1041-42 (2003); In re Billy W., 386 Md. 675, 684 , 874 A.2d 423, 429 (2005) ("the best interests of the child may take precedence over the parent's liberty interest in the course of a custody, visitation, or adoption dispute”). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Katianne S.
In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 565 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1038 (2003).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Xavier H.
See, also, e.g., In re Guardianship of D.J., 268 Neb. 239 , 682 N.W.2d 238 (2004); In re Interest of Amber G. et al., 250 Neb. 973 , 554 N.W.2d 142 (1996). [10] In re Guardianship of D.J., supra note 9, 268 Neb. at 247 , 682 N.W.2d at 245 . [11] In re Interest of Ty M. & Devon M., supra note 3. [12] Id. at 174-75 , 655 N.W.2d at 692 . [13] In re Erin, 443 Mass. 567 , 823 N.E.2d 356 (2005). [14] Id. at 568 , 823 N.E.2d at 359 . [15] Id. at 572 , 823 N.E.2d at 361 . [16] In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 565 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1038 (2003). [17] In re Guardianship of D.J., supra note 9, 268 Neb. at 246-47…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Koshko v. Haining
(4×)
In re Samone H., 385 Md. 282, 300 , 869 A.2d 370, 380 (2005) (stating that "[a] parent's interest in raising a child is, no doubt, a fundamental right, recognized by the United States Supreme Court and this Court," and cataloguing cases); In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 565-66 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1038-39 (2003); Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 217-18 , 721 A.2d 662, 668-69 (1998); Sider v. Sider, 334 Md. 512 , 527 n. 12, 639 A.2d 1076 , 1084 n. 12 (1994); accord Troxel, 530 U.S. at 65-66 , 120 S.Ct. at 2060 (stating that "we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concernin…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Karl H.
(3×)
We acknowledge that “Maryland has ... echoed the Supreme Court, declaring a parent’s liberty interest in raising a child a fundamental one that cannot be taken away unless clearly justified.” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 567 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1039 (2003) (citations omitted). *415 The Court has recognized the fundamental rights which parents possess: The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that a parent has a constitutionally protected fundamental right to raise his or her children.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Maria P.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 566-58 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1039-40 (2003)(quoting In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705 , 782 A.2d 332, 342-43 (2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Blessen H.
(2×)
Id. at 573-76, 819 A.2d at 1043-45 (emphasis added); see also In re Adoption/Guardianship Nos.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Koshko v. Haining
Rather, Due Process analysis requires the delicate balancing of all of the competing interests involved in the litigation.’ “ In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 569 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1041 (2003) (quoting Wolinski, 115 Md.App. at 300 , 693 A.2d at 37 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Billy W.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 566-67 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1039 (2003); In re Mark M., 365 Md. 687, 705-06 , 782 A.2d 332, 343 (2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Ashley E.
(4×)
Permanency Plans in CINA Proceedings In response to concerns that children were being lost in the foster care system without belonging to a permanent family, Congress enacted Public Law 96-272, the “Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. of 1980,” codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 670-679 (1988), and the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P.L. 105-89, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 678b, 678, 679b (2000), which required states, among other things, to “provide a written case plan for each child for whom the state claims federal foster care maintenance payments.” 42 U.S.C. § 671 (…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Billy W.
(3×)
Such rights are so fundamental that they “cannot be taken away unless clearly justified,” Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204, 218 , 721 A.2d 662, 669 (1998)(citing In re Adoption No. 10941, 335 Md. 99, 112 , 642 A.2d 201 (1994)), because a parent’s interest “occupies a unique place in our legal culture, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.” In re Yve S. 373 Md. 551, 567 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1039 (2003), quoting In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 10941, 335 Md. 99, 112 , 642 A.2d 201 (1994), in turn quoting Lassiter v. Department of Social Se…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Victor A.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 571, 819 A.2d at 1042 (internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Renbaum v. Custom Holding, Inc.
Before finding an abuse of discretion we would need to agree that, “ ‘the decision under consideration [is] well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.’ ” In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 583-84 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1049 (2003) (quoting In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598, 347 Md. 295, 312-13 , 701 A.2d 110, 118-19 (1997) (some internal citations omitted)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Samone H.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Id. at 577-81, 819 A.2d at 1046-48 (additions in original).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re ANDRE J.
See In re Shirley B., 419 Md. 1, 18 , 18 A.3d 40 (2011) (quoting In re Yve S., 373 Md. at 586 , 819 A.2d 1030 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Caitlin N.
See In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 616 , 819 A.2d 1030 (2003) (“[I]t has long been settled policy of this court not to reverse for harmless error.” (Internal citations omitted).).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Chaden M.
(2×)
See In re Yve S., 373 Md. at 566, 819 A.2d 1030 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Najasha B.
See In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 571 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1042 (2003)(stating that “[t]he best interests of the child standard embraces a strong presumption that the child’s best interests are served by maintaining parental rights”).
cited
Cited "see"
Hall v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.
See In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 616-18 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1068-69 (2003) (discussing the parameters this Court has established for finding harmless error).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Blessen H.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id. at 575-76, 819 A.2d 1030 ; see also In re Adoption No. 93321055, 344 Md. at 477 , 687 A.2d 681 .
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Victor A.
(7×)
See id. at 566-67 , 819 A.2d 1030 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Frase v. Barnhart
(2×)
See In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 , 819 A.2d 1030 (2003); Shurupoff v. Vockroth, supra, 372 Md. 639 , 814 A.2d 543 ; Boswell v. Boswell, 352 Md. 204 , 721 A.2d 662 (1998).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of J.T.
See also In re Yve S. , 373 Md. 551 , 586, 819 A.2d 1030 (2003) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Amber R.
(2×)
See, e.g., In re Adoption/Guardianship of Victor A, 386 Md. 288, 297 , 872 A.2d 662, 667 (2005) (quoting In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551, 586 , 819 A.2d 1030, 1051 (2003)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Maryland
v.
Darris Alaric WARE
v.
Darris Alaric WARE
50 Sept. Term 2001.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Aug 22, 2002.
Annabelle L. Lise, Assistant Attorney General and J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, for Appellant., Fred Warren Bennett of Bennett & Nathans, LLP, Greenbelt, and Arcangelo M. Tuminelli, Baltimore, for Appellee.
Submitted Before Bell.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Special Appeals of Ma… (1)
ORDER
The Court having considered the State’s application for leave to appeal from the grant of post conviction relief in a capital case, Darris Ware’s application for leave to appeal, and the answers filed thereto, in the above-entitled case, it is this 22nd day of August, 2002,
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that both applications be, and they are hereby, DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED, that, as to the belated appeal ordered by the Circuit Court on the single issue of whether Darris Ware had received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, consideration of that appeal is deferred pending the new sentencing[*551] proceeding, and the belated appeal will be considered with the appeal, if any, from the decision in the sentencing hearing.