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.
8 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 38 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 the Dependency of D.C.-M..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In re the Dependency of D.C.-M. Anchor | green | “the dependency statutes provide a broad framework from which the juvenile court may order services to facilitate parent-child reunification.” | 7 |
| 2 | In Re Dependency of Dc-M. | neutral | “the dependency statutes provide a broad framework from which the juvenile court may order services to facilitate parent-child reunification.” | 6 |
| 3 | In Re Dependency of TLG | green | “the primary purpose of a dependency is to allow courts to order remedial measures to preserve and mend family ties.” | 6 |
| 4 | Department of Social & Health Services v. Gilfillen | green | “the primary purpose of a dependency is to allow courts to order remedial measures to preserve and mend family ties.” | 6 |
| 5 | In re Dependency of K.W. | green | “decisions in child welfare proceedings 'are often vulnerable to judgments based on cultural or class bias,' given that poor families and families of color are disproportionately impacted by child welfare proceedings.” | 4 |
| 6 | In re the Personal Restraint of Swagerty | green | “questions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be considered as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.” | 3 |
| 7 | Department of Social & Health Services v. E.I. | green | “at times, such as 10 the father argues the "finding of reasonable efforts was not based on substantial evidence” | 3 |
| 8 | Fernando v. Nieswandt | green | “rather than actual evidence, the court instead relied on the 'impressions' of the social workers and the guardian ad litem (gal), pauline duke for its conclusion that the father cannot be a protective force for his children because he wanted to reunite with his wife and lacked i…” | 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.