prospective analysis (Missouri) · Go Syfert
← Missouri issues

prospective analysis in Missouri

18 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re KAWgreen
mo · 2004 · cited in 9 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2020
2 sentences

2020In Interest of T.T.G. v. K.S.G., 530 S.W.3d 489 , 495 n.4 (Mo. banc 2017). 2 In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Mo. banc 2004) as the applicable law she claims the trial court erroneously applied: • An essential part of any determination whether to terminate parental rights is whether, considered at the time of the termination and looking to the future, the child would be harmed by a continued relationship with the parent. • A prospective analysis is required to determine whether grounds exist and what is in the best interests of the child for the reasonably foreseeable future. • [I]t is insuffici

2016Mother .appeals, contending that the court erred by failing to engage in the prospective analysis required by the Supreme Court in In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 12 (Mo.banc 2004).

39
In Re CWgreen
mo · 2007 · cited in 8 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2007–2011
2 sentences

2011Specifically, "[t]here must be a prospective analysis with some explicit consideration of whether past behaviors indicate future harm." Id. at 98-99 .

2011Specifically, “[t]here must be a prospective analysis with some explicit consideration of whether past behaviors indicate future harm.” Id. at 98-99 .

28
In Re EFBDgreen
moctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
2 sentences

2011And while K.A.W. acknowledged that "it is difficult to predict the future," id., and did not completely discount the precept that "a parent's past patterns provide vital clues about present and future conduct," In re E.F.B.D., 245 S.W.3d 316, 327 (Mo.App.

2011And while K.A.W. acknowledged that “it is difficult to predict the future,” id., and did not completely discount the precept that “a parent’s past patterns provide vital clues about present and future conduct,” In re E.F.B.D., 245 S.W.3d 316, 327 (Mo.App.

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Interest of T.T.G. v. K.S.G. green
· 2017
1 sentence

2020In Interest of T.T.G. v. K.S.G., 530 S.W.3d 489 , 495 n.4 (Mo. banc 2017). 2 In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Mo. banc 2004) as the applicable law she claims the trial court erroneously applied: • An essential part of any determination whether to terminate parental rights is whether, considered at the time of the termination and looking to the future, the child would be harmed by a continued relationship with the parent. • A prospective analysis is required to determine whether grounds exist and what is in the best interests of the child for the reasonably foreseeable future. • [I]t is insuffici

12020–2020
In the Interest of: Q.A.H. Juvenile Officer, C.W.M. and C.D.M. v. M.H. (Mother) green
mo · 2014
2 sentences

2014“In this manner, the parent’s past conduct may be good evidence of future behavior, but it must be convincingly linked to future behavior.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). “[T]he standard is a prospective analysis and considers whether there is a likelihood of future harm.” Id. (emphasis in original).

2014“In this manner, the parent’s past conduct may be good evidence of future behavior, but it must be convincingly linked to future behavior.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). “[T]he standard is a prospective analysis and considers whether there is a likelihood of future harm.” Id. (emphasis in original).

12014–2014

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.447 (11) MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 211.455 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 42 (1958–2025) MA 28 (1981–2023) NY 22 (1943–2021) PA 21 (1940–2023) MO 18 (2007–2020) IL 15 (1977–2020) FL 13 (1971–2018) HI 11 (1996–2023) TX 7 (1977–2023) MN 7 (1991–2024) MD 7 (1929–2013) IN 6 (1994–2013) UT 6 (1992–2019) OR 6 (1980–2022) GA 6 (1953–2024) CT 5 (1999–2019) IA 5 (1989–2015) MI 5 (1972–2012) DC 4 (1976–2003) NJ 4 (1988–2019) AK 4 (1995–2025) WI 3 (1986–2009) CO 3 (2011–2021) ME 3 (1994–2022) OH 3 (2006–2021) NM 3 (2009–2024) WV 3 (1991–2014) TN 3 (2001–2006) VA 2 (2000–2018) KY 2 (1948–1967) KS 2 (1991–1996) LA 2 (1970–1985) OK 2 (1987–1995) NH 2 (1972–2011) AR 2 (1982–1993)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check