14 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brandenburg v. LaBARREgreen2 sentences2014This probably is enough to meet the exceptional circumstances standard under Brandenburg [ v. LaBarre, 193 Md. 2014This probably is enough to meet the exceptional circumstances standard under Brandenburg [v. LaBarre, 193 Md.App. 178 , 996 A.2d 939 (2010)] in order to overcome the burden with respect to Lance, however, the Court will also look to the traditional factors in determining exceptional circumstances, as developed in Ross v. Hoffman [, 280 Md. 172 , 372 A.2d 582 (1977)]. [A]t the time of the visitation hearing, Victoria had been away from the children approximately two years. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Adoption No. A91-71Agreen2 sentences2018There, the Court of Special Appeals explained that this Court had included a parent's behavior or character in the exceptional circumstances analysis in another case, In re Adoption/Guardianship No. A91-71A , 334 Md. 538 , 640 A.2d 1085 (1994). 2018There, the Court of Special Appeals explained that this Court had included a parent's behavior or character in the exceptional circumstances analysis in another case, In re Adoption/Guardianship No. A91-71A , 334 Md. 538 , 640 A.2d 1085 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
Koshko v. Haininggreen2 sentences2009It acknowledged that in Fairbanks it previously had held that visitation did not demand the enhanced protections embodied in the exceptional circumstances test that attend custody awards, id. at 429-30, 921 A.2d 171 but it made clear that this was no longer the case: There is no dispute that the grant or modification of visitation involves a lesser degree of intrusion on the fundamental right to parent than the assignment of custody. 2008The rationale for this distinction, as outlined in Fairbanks, was twofold: first, the plain text of the GVS did not require a threshold showing; and second, visitation was considered a “less weighty matter than outright custody of a child,” and therefore, it did not “demand the enhanced protections, embodied in the exceptional circumstances test, [attending] custody awards.” 330 Md. at 47-48 , 622 A.2d 121 ; see also Herrick v. Wain, 154 Md.App. 222, 231-32 , 838 A.2d 1263 (2003) (applying Fairbanks in a grandparent visitation dispute), overruled in part by Koshko, 398 Md. 404 , 921 A.2d 171 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D.green2 sentences2018See, e.g. , In re Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D., Jr. , 412 Md. 442 , 462-63, 987 A.2d 536 (2010) ("Passage of time, without explicit findings that the continued relationship with [the parent] would prove detrimental to the best interests of the children, is not sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances."). 2018See, e.g. , In re Adoption/Guardianship of Alonza D., Jr. , 412 Md. 442 , 462-63, 987 A.2d 536 (2010) ("Passage of time, without explicit findings that the continued relationship with [the parent] would prove detrimental to the best interests of the children, is not sufficient to constitute exceptional circumstances."). | 1 | 1 |
Herrick v. Waingreen2 sentences2008The rationale for this distinction, as outlined in Fairbanks, was twofold: first, the plain text of the GVS did not require a threshold showing; and second, visitation was considered a “less weighty matter than outright custody of a child,” and therefore, it did not “demand the enhanced protections, embodied in the exceptional circumstances test, [attending] custody awards.” 330 Md. at 47-48 , 622 A.2d 121 ; see also Herrick v. Wain, 154 Md.App. 222, 231-32 , 838 A.2d 1263 (2003) (applying Fairbanks in a grandparent visitation dispute), overruled in part by Koshko, 398 Md. 404 , 921 A.2d 171 . 2008The rationale for this distinction, as outlined in Fairbanks, was twofold: first, the plain text of the GVS did not require a threshold showing; and second, visitation was considered a “less weighty matter than outright custody of a child,” and therefore, it did not “demand the enhanced protections, embodied in the exceptional circumstances test, [attending] custody awards.” 330 Md. at 47-48 , 622 A.2d 121 ; see also Herrick v. Wain, 154 Md.App. 222, 231-32 , 838 A.2d 1263 (2003) (applying Fairbanks in a grandparent visitation dispute), overruled in part by Koshko, 398 Md. 404 , 921 A.2d 171 . | 1 | 1 |
Wolinski v. Brownellergreen2 sentences2007The Court in Fairbanks declared that, with regard to substantive due process rights, "[v]isitation is a considerably less weighty matter than outright custody of a child, and does not demand the enhanced protections, embodied in the exceptional circumstances test, that attend custody awards." Fairbanks, 330 Md. at 48 , 622 A.2d at 126 ; see also Wolinski, 115 Md. 2007App. at 305-06 , 693 A.2d at 39-40 . | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Adoption of JJBgreen | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Collinsworthgreen1 sentence2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
Henderson v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
Matter of KMgreen1 sentence2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
| Dg v. Dmkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Snyder v. Scheerergreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Guardianship of Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moore v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
In Re Woodellgreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
Bailes v. Soursgreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
James v. Pretlowgreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
| Wingerter v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
Locklin v. Dukagreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
White v. Thompsongreen1 sentence2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
Stockwell v. Stockwellgreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Guardianship of MRSgreen | 1 | 1 |
Cotton v. Wisegreen1 sentence2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
| Wilkerson v. Wilkersongreen | 1 | 1 |
In Re Guardianship of DA McW.green1 sentence2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
| Sider v. Sidergreen | 1 | 1 |
Petition of Kirchnergreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
| Ryan v. DeMellogreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re SBLgreen | 1 | 1 |
Carvalho v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c 2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 1 |
| In Interest of EJHgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Adoption of Female Childgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Troxel v. Granvillegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fairbanks v. McCarter
green
2 sentences2009The Court concluded that the plain language of the GVS required neither a predicate showing of exceptional circumstances nor parental unfitness before an award of visitation to grandparents could be ordered, because “[visitation is a considerably less weighty matter than outright custody of a child, and does not demand the enhanced protections, embodied in the exceptional circumstances test, that attend custody awards.” Fairbanks, 330 Md. at 48 , 622 A.2d 121 . 2009The Court concluded that the plain language of the GVS required neither a predicate showing of exceptional circumstances nor parental unfitness before an award of visitation to grandparents could be ordered, because “[visitation is a considerably less weighty matter than outright custody of a child, and does not demand the enhanced protections, embodied in the exceptional circumstances test, that attend custody awards.” Fairbanks, 330 Md. at 48 , 622 A.2d 121 . | 4 | 1997–2009 |
Ross v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences2017Although the Hoffman factors serve merely “as a guide” to aid a court in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, see Hoffman, 280 Md. at 188 , 372 A.2d at 592 , we note that the Hoffman factors served as the analytical framework that the hearing judge relied on in ultimately finding that exceptional circumstances existed. 58 Accordingly, although we have previously acknowledged the existence of other factors that may be relevant in an exceptional circumstances inquiry, 59 we will confine our review of the hearing judge’s exceptional circumstances finding to his application of the 2017Although the Hoffman factors serve merely “as a guide” to aid a court in determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, see Hoffman, 280 Md. at 188 , 372 A.2d at 592 , we note that the Hoffman factors served as the analytical framework that the hearing judge relied on in ultimately finding that exceptional circumstances existed. 58 Accordingly, although we have previously acknowledged the existence of other factors that may be relevant in an exceptional circumstances inquiry, 59 we will confine our review of the hearing judge’s exceptional circumstances finding to his application of the | 3 | 2010–2017 |
Aumiller v. Aumiller
green
2 sentences2014See Brandenburg, supra, 193 Md.App. 178 , 996 A.2d 939 (not considering harm to grandparents resulting from the denial of visitation); Aumiller, supra, 183 Md.App. 71 , 959 A.2d 849 (focusing on whether harm to minor children was caused by denial of visitation rather than harm to grandparents). 2014See Brandenburg, supra, 193 Md.App. 178 , 996 A.2d 939 (not considering harm to grandparents resulting from the denial of visitation); Aumiller, supra, 183 Md.App. 71 , 959 A.2d 849 (focusing on whether harm to minor children was caused by denial of visitation rather than harm to grandparents). | 2 | 2012–2014 |
In Re Custody of HSHK
green
2 sentences2000In determining whether one is a de facto parent, we employ the test enunciated in In re Custody of H.S.H.-K, 193 Wis.2d 649 , 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995), and V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 , 748 A.2d 539 (2000). 2000In determining whether one is a de facto parent, we employ the test enunciated in In re Custody of H.S.H.-K, 193 Wis.2d 649 , 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995), and V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 , 748 A.2d 539 (2000). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Vc v. Mjb
green
2 sentences2000In determining whether one is a de facto parent, we employ the test enunciated in In re Custody of H.S.H.-K, 193 Wis.2d 649 , 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995), and V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 , 748 A.2d 539 (2000). 2000In determining whether one is a de facto parent, we employ the test enunciated in In re Custody of H.S.H.-K, 193 Wis.2d 649 , 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995), and V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 , 748 A.2d 539 (2000). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Pastore v. Sharp
green
1 sentence2018For example, in Ta'Niya C. , 417 Md. at 104 n.11, 8 A.3d 745 , we explained that in a TPR exceptional circumstances analysis, "[i]n addition to ... statutory factors, courts may consider 'such parental characteristics as age, stability, and the capacity and interest of a parent to provide for the emotional, social, moral, material, and educational needs of the child.' " (quoting Pastore v. Sharp , 81 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Adoption/Guardianship of Ta'Niya C.
green
2 sentences2018For example, in Ta'Niya C. , 417 Md. at 104 n.11, 8 A.3d 745 , we explained that in a TPR exceptional circumstances analysis, "[i]n addition to ... statutory factors, courts may consider 'such parental characteristics as age, stability, and the capacity and interest of a parent to provide for the emotional, social, moral, material, and educational needs of the child.' " (quoting Pastore v. Sharp , 81 Md. 2018For example, in Ta'Niya C. , 417 Md. at 104 n.11, 8 A.3d 745 , we explained that in a TPR exceptional circumstances analysis, "[i]n addition to ... statutory factors, courts may consider 'such parental characteristics as age, stability, and the capacity and interest of a parent to provide for the emotional, social, moral, material, and educational needs of the child.' " (quoting Pastore v. Sharp , 81 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re: Adoption of K'amora K.
green
1 sentence2018K'Amora K. , 218 Md. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Janice M. v. Margaret K.
red
2 sentences2008Janice M, 404 Md. at 693-95 , 948 A.2d 73 . 2008Janice M, 404 Md. at 693-95 , 948 A.2d 73 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In re the Estate, Conservatorship, & Guardianship of K.M.
green
1 sentence2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Alford v. Thomas green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Merritt v. Way green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In re S.B.L.
green
1 sentence2005McW, 460 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1984) (stating parental presumption can be rebutted only if ‘detrimental to the welfare of the child’ based on an exceptional circumstances test); Carvalho v. Lewis, 247 Ga. 94 , 274 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1981) (applying unfitness or ‘compelling circumstances’ test and noting ‘[a] court is not allowed to terminate a parent’s natural right because it has determined that the child might have better financial, educational, or even moral advantages elsewhere’); Stockwell v. Stockwell, 116 Idaho 297 , 775 P.2d 611, 613 (1989) (requiring unfitness, abandonment, or that ‘the c | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.
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.