In Re Najasha B.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing the guidelines for whether the word “shall” is to be interpreted as mandatory or directory
• explaining that “in the absence of a contrary contextual indication, the use of the word ‘shall’ is presumed to have a mandatory meaning . . . and thus denotes an imperative obligation inconsistent with the exercise of discretion” (quoting In re James S., 286 Md. 702, 709 (1980))
• “The broad policy of the CINA Subtitle is to ensure that juvenile courts (and local departments of social services) exercise authority to protect and advance a child’s best interests when court intervention is required.”
• “ ‘in the absence of a contrary contextual indication, the use of the word “shall” is presumed to have a mandatory meaning ... and thus denotes an imperative obligation inconsistent with the exercise of discretion’ ”
• “The broad policy of the CINA Subtitle is to ensure that juvenile courts (and local departments of social services) exercise authority to protect and advance a child’s best interests when court intervention is required.”
• “in the absence of a contrary contextual indication, the use of the word ‘shall’ is presumed to have a mandatory meaning . . . and thus denotes an imperative obligation inconsistent with the exercise of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).