11 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
IN RE TA.L. IN RE A.L. IN PETITION OF R.W. & A.W. IN RE PETITION OF E.A.A.H. AND T.L.green2 sentences2019Three months later, on December 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Breslow held a permanency hearing to determine whether a goal change was appropriate, pursuant to Ta.L.7 ______________________ 7 In re Ta.L., 149 A.3d 1060 (D.C. 2016) (en banc). 2019Three months later, on December 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge Breslow held a permanency hearing to determine whether a goal change was appropriate, pursuant to Ta.L.7 ______________________ 7 In re Ta.L., 149 A.3d 1060 (D.C. 2016) (en banc). | 2 | 4 |
Application of LLgreen2 sentences2001We respectfully request that the next court hearing be a permanency hearing to finalize and address ambiguities that still remain in the case. [7] "The central purpose of the [federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq. ] is to remove children from long term foster care, either by uniting them with their parents or by placing them with adoptive parents or in some other permanent arrangement." L.L., supra, 653 A.2d at 888 (citation omitted). [8] In her suit against the District in the United States District Court, the mother claims, in essence, that her daughter' 2001We respectfully request that the next court hearing be a permanency hearing to finalize and address ambiguities that still remain in the case. [7] "The central purpose of the [federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq. ] is to remove children from long term foster care, either by uniting them with their parents or by placing them with adoptive parents or in some other permanent arrangement." L.L., supra, 653 A.2d at 888 (citation omitted). [8] In her suit against the District in the United States District Court, the mother claims, in essence, that her daughter' | 2 | 2 |
In Re BJgreen2 sentences2014See In re F.N.B., 706 A.2d at 31 ("Although TJ. concerned adoption, its underlying rationale is equally applicable to termination of parental rights cases ... especially because the constitutional implications are close, if not identical.”) (internal citations omitted); see also In re A.B., 955 A.2d 161 , 165 (D.C. 2008) (applying TJ. standard in a termination-only hearing, where alternative caretaker identified himself during a permanency hearing as a placement resource); In re B.J., 917 A.2d 86 , 89 (D.C.2007) (applying TJ. standard where alternative caretaker testified during termination of 2014In re A.T.A., 910 A.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (D.C. 2006) (citing In re An.C., 722 A.2d at 40-41 ); see also, e.g., In re K.D., 26 A.3d 772 , 781-82 n. 10 (D.C.2011); In re R.E.S., 19 A.3d 785 , 790 n. 5 (D.C.2011); In re B.J., 917 A.2d at 93-94. | 1 | 1 |
In Re ABgreen1 sentence2014See In re F.N.B., 706 A.2d at 31 ("Although TJ. concerned adoption, its underlying rationale is equally applicable to termination of parental rights cases ... especially because the constitutional implications are close, if not identical.”) (internal citations omitted); see also In re A.B., 955 A.2d 161 , 165 (D.C. 2008) (applying TJ. standard in a termination-only hearing, where alternative caretaker identified himself during a permanency hearing as a placement resource); In re B.J., 917 A.2d 86 , 89 (D.C.2007) (applying TJ. standard where alternative caretaker testified during termination of | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kdgreen1 sentence2014In re A.T.A., 910 A.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (D.C. 2006) (citing In re An.C., 722 A.2d at 40-41 ); see also, e.g., In re K.D., 26 A.3d 772 , 781-82 n. 10 (D.C.2011); In re R.E.S., 19 A.3d 785 , 790 n. 5 (D.C.2011); In re B.J., 917 A.2d at 93-94. | 1 | 1 |
In Re FNBgreen1 sentence2014See In re F.N.B., 706 A.2d at 31 ("Although TJ. concerned adoption, its underlying rationale is equally applicable to termination of parental rights cases ... especially because the constitutional implications are close, if not identical.”) (internal citations omitted); see also In re A.B., 955 A.2d 161 , 165 (D.C. 2008) (applying TJ. standard in a termination-only hearing, where alternative caretaker identified himself during a permanency hearing as a placement resource); In re B.J., 917 A.2d 86 , 89 (D.C.2007) (applying TJ. standard where alternative caretaker testified during termination of | 1 | 1 |
In Re KMTgreen1 sentence2013See In re K.M.T., 795 A.2d 688, 690-91 (D.C.2002) (holding that a permanency planning order “merely sets goals for the children and does not affect the parents’ substantive rights in any way.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Petition of Wdgreen1 sentence2010See In re W.D., 988 A.2d 456 , 465 n. 10 (D.C.2010). [18] It appears that the trial judge might have been acting pursuant to this belief as far back as October 20, 2005, when she remarked in a permanency hearing order that "[u]nder D.C. law, more than thirty days have lapsed since [M.K.L. and L.L. had executed their consents to the G.s' adoption of G.K.], which makes such consents irrevocable. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re K.C. D.C.
green
2 sentences2019M.W.’s own testimony was ______________________ 38 See In re K.C., 200 A.3d at 1237 & n.14 (discussing the parent’s uncooperativeness and concluding that, “[i]f there was a failure to make reasonable efforts, it appears to have been on [the parent’s] part, not the [a]gency’s part”). 39 M.W. also repeats, in connection with Man 2 Man, his assertions regarding the CFSA employee who he alleges was convicted of murder and subjected to professional discipline. 2019M.W.’s own testimony was ______________________ 38 See In re K.C., 200 A.3d at 1237 & n.14 (discussing the parent’s uncooperativeness and concluding that, “[i]f there was a failure to make reasonable efforts, it appears to have been on [the parent’s] part, not the [a]gency’s part”). 39 M.W. also repeats, in connection with Man 2 Man, his assertions regarding the CFSA employee who he alleges was convicted of murder and subjected to professional discipline. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In re Ta.L.
green
2 sentences2016In fact, as the division recognized, the goal change was advantageous to the biological parents because “[t]he trial court, by changing the permanency goal to adoption, provided the impetus for CFSA to become involved in providing services to [the aunt] and thus effectively helped facilitate [the biological parents’] goal of placing the children with [her].”14 We shall see that the lack of record support also undermines key factual assertions made in the majority opinion to justify its legal conclusions regarding goal changes.15 (….continued) easy, beyond serious debate.”) (internal punctuatio 2016In fact, as the division recognized, the goal change was advantageous to the biological parents because “[t]he trial court, by changing the permanency goal to adoption, provided the impetus for CFSA to become involved in providing services to [the aunt] and thus effectively helped facilitate [the biological parents’] goal of placing the children with [her].”14 We shall see that the lack of record support also undermines key factual assertions made in the majority opinion to justify its legal conclusions regarding goal changes.15 (….continued) easy, beyond serious debate.”) (internal punctuatio | 2 | 2016–2016 |
In Re RES
green
1 sentence2014In re A.T.A., 910 A.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (D.C. 2006) (citing In re An.C., 722 A.2d at 40-41 ); see also, e.g., In re K.D., 26 A.3d 772 , 781-82 n. 10 (D.C.2011); In re R.E.S., 19 A.3d 785 , 790 n. 5 (D.C.2011); In re B.J., 917 A.2d at 93-94. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re An. C.
green
2 sentences2014See In re F.N.B., 706 A.2d at 31 ("Although TJ. concerned adoption, its underlying rationale is equally applicable to termination of parental rights cases ... especially because the constitutional implications are close, if not identical.”) (internal citations omitted); see also In re A.B., 955 A.2d 161 , 165 (D.C. 2008) (applying TJ. standard in a termination-only hearing, where alternative caretaker identified himself during a permanency hearing as a placement resource); In re B.J., 917 A.2d 86 , 89 (D.C.2007) (applying TJ. standard where alternative caretaker testified during termination of 2014In re A.T.A., 910 A.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (D.C. 2006) (citing In re An.C., 722 A.2d at 40-41 ); see also, e.g., In re K.D., 26 A.3d 772 , 781-82 n. 10 (D.C.2011); In re R.E.S., 19 A.3d 785 , 790 n. 5 (D.C.2011); In re B.J., 917 A.2d at 93-94. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re ATA
green
1 sentence2014In re A.T.A., 910 A.2d 293 , 297 n. 4 (D.C. 2006) (citing In re An.C., 722 A.2d at 40-41 ); see also, e.g., In re K.D., 26 A.3d 772 , 781-82 n. 10 (D.C.2011); In re R.E.S., 19 A.3d 785 , 790 n. 5 (D.C.2011); In re B.J., 917 A.2d at 93-94. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.