Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 11 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re As.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re As Anchor | green | “relinquishment and adoption statutes are intended to protect the best interests of the child, to achieve finality in the placement of children, and protect new family relationships from disturbance by natural parents” | 5 |
| 2 | In Re Dependency of MS | neutral | “the difficulty of setting aside a consent reflects a public policy favoring finality in relinquishment proceedings.” | 3 |
| 3 | Sigurdson v. Department of Social & Health Services | neutral | “the difficulty of setting aside a consent reflects a public policy favoring finality in relinquishment proceedings.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.