text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
July 16, 2007
ERIC WARE, INMATE #R32516, PLAINTIFF,v.ALAN UCHTMAN, KRISTA SCHORN, C/O PRANGE, AND REGINA SUMMERS, DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a former inmate in the Menard Correctional Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which provides:
(a) Screening.-- The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.
(b) Grounds for Dismissal.-- On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint--
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. An action or claim is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Upon careful review of the complaint and any supporting exhibits, the Court finds it appropriate to exercise its authority under § 1915A; portions of this action are subject to summary dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
To facilitate the orderly management of future proceedings in this case, and in accordance with the objectives of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(f) and 10(b), the Court finds it appropriate to break the claims in Plaintiff's pro se complaint and other pleadings into numbered counts, as shown below. The parties and the Court will use these designations in all future filings and orders, unless otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as to their merit.
COUNT 1: Against Defendants Uchtman and Prange for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs.
COUNT 2: Against Defendant Uchtman for unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
COUNT 3: Against Defendant Schorn for denying Plaintiff access to courts.
COUNT 4: Against Defendant Schorn for unconstitutional retaliation.
COUNT 5: Against Defendant Summers for denying Plaintiff's request to phone his attorney.
Plaintiff states that he suffered an asthma attack on December 17, 2005, while in his cell in segregation at Menard. He used his inhaler, but it did not stop the attack. He could not yell out for help because he could not catch his breath. The cell did not contain a medical emergency call button. Eventually, other inmates who could hear Plaintiff in distress began calling out to guards for assistance. Plaintiff estimates that he had to wait 15 to 20 minutes for medical assistance, during which time he could not breathe well and suffered from chest pain. Plaintiff states that the full attack could have been stopped had he received a breathing treatment. Plaintiff states that Defendant Uchtman refuses to install emergency call buttons in the cells of asthmatics.
On January 16, 2006, Plaintiff suffered another asthma attack brought on by the cold temperature and poor ventilation in his cell. He was forced to wait ten minutes before a prison employee found him and another five minutes before he was seen by medical personnel. Plaintiff states that prior to this attack he had complained to Defendant Uchtman about the cold temperature and poor ventilation in the cell.
On March 22, 2006, Plaintiff informed Defendant Prange that he was having difficulty breathing and needed his inhaler. Defendant Prange refused to assist Plaintiff, telling him that he wouldn't receive any medical attention because of a "smart remark" that Plaintiff had made to Defendant Prange earlier that day. Plaintiff later had an asthma attack and had to use the inhaler of another inmate because Defendant Prange had refused to provide him with his own. That evening, Plaintiff was issued a new inhaler by medical staff.
On April 18, 2006, after Plaintiff had been placed in a segregation cell with a steel door, he suffered another asthma attack and had to be rushed to the medical unit for a breathing treatment. Plaintiff states the attack was brought on by the over 80-degree temperature in the cell.
The Supreme Court has recognized that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners" may constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994). This encompasses a broader range of conduct than intentional denial of necessary medical treatment, but it stops short of "negligen[ce] in diagnosing or treating a medical condition." Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106; see also Jones v. Simek, 193 F.3d 485, 489 (7th Cir. 1999); Steele v. Choi, 82 F.3d 175, 178 (7th Cir. 1996).
A prisoner raising an Eighth Amendment claim against a prison official therefore must satisfy two requirements. The first one is an objective standard: "[T]he deprivation alleged must be, objectively, 'sufficiently serious.'" Farmer, 511 U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1977. As the Court explained in Farmer, "a prison official's act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." Id. The second requirement is a subjective one: "[A] prison official must have a 'sufficiently culpable state of mind,'" one that the Court has defined as "deliberate indifference." Id.; see Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed. 2d 156 (1992) ("[T]he appropriate inquiry when an inmate alleges that prison officials failed to attend to serious medical needs is whether the officials exhibited 'deliberate indifference.'"); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed. 2d 251 (1976) ("[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'").
Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987, 991-992 (7th Cir. 1996). However, the Supreme Court stressed that this test is not an insurmountable hurdle for inmates raising Eighth Amendment claims:
[A]n Eighth Amendment claimant need not show that a prison official acted or failed to act believing that harm actually would befall an inmate; it is enough that the official acted or failed to act despite his knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm.... Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, ... and a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842.
The Seventh Circuit's decisions following this standard for deliberate indifference in the denial or delay of medical care require evidence of a defendant's actual knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, a substantial risk of harm. The Circuit also recognizes that a defendant's inadvertent error, negligence, or even ordinary malpractice is insufficient to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment constitutional violation.
Neglect of a prisoner's health becomes a violation of the Eighth Amendment only if the prison official named as defendant is deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's health -- that is, only if he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.
Williams v. O'Leary, 55 F.3d 320, 324 (7th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation omitted); see also Steele, 82 F.3d at 179 (concluding there was insufficient evidence of doctor's knowledge of serious medical risk or of his deliberate indifference to that risk; emphasizing that even malpractice is not enough proof under Farmer); Miller v. Neathery, 52 F.3d 634, 638-39 (7th Cir. 1995) (applying Farmer mandate in jury instruction). However, a plaintiff inmate need not prove that a defendant intended the harm that ultimately transpired or believed the harm would occur. Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d 630, 641 (7th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff believes he received inadequate medical treatment for these asthma attacks. He names only Defendants Prange and Uchtman in his allegations. Thus, these are the only two defendants who will be considered under this count.
Defendant Prange
Plaintiff states that Defendant Prange deliberately refused to give Plaintiff his inhaler because of a comment Plaintiff had made to him earlier in the day. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff suffered an asthma attack and had to borrow an inhaler from another inmate. Based on the legal standards outlined above, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant Prange acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical need because he has demonstrated his medical need (asthma) and that Defendant Prange acted with the requisite culpable state of mind. Therefore, Plaintiff may proceed against Defendant Prange on Count 1 of the complaint.
Defendant Uchtman
Plaintiff states that Defendant Uchtman acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs because he had not installed emergency call buttons in the cells of asthmatics at Menard, thus causing Plaintiff to suffer unnecessarily when the asthma attacks occurred. Based on the standards outlined above, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim that Defendant Uchtman acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Although Plaintiff may have a serious medical need, he has not shown how Defendant Uchtman acted with the requisite culpable state of mind to constitute deliberate indifference here. Furthermore, a plaintiff cannot state a claim against a defendant under section 1983 unless he shows that defendant was personally responsible for the constitutional deprivation. Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 740 (7th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Defendant Uchtman is DISMISSED from Count 1of the complaint.
Plaintiff states that Defendant Uchtman allowed him to remain in his extremely-cold, poorly-ventilated cell, causing him to suffer hypothermia, fever, regurgitation, flu, asthma attacks, headaches, arthritis, and sore throat. Plaintiff states that it was so cold in his cell that the water in the toilet was frozen one morning.
The Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. It has been a means of improving prison conditions that were constitutionally unacceptable. See, e.g., Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666 (1962); Sellers v. Henman, 41 F.3d 1100, 1102 (7th Cir. 1994). As the Supreme Court noted in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981), the amendment reaches beyond barbarous physical punishment to prohibit the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime. The Constitution also prohibits punishment that is totally without penological justification. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 183 (1976).
Not all prison conditions trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny -- only deprivations of basic human needs like food, medical care, sanitation, and physical safety. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346; see also James v. Milwaukee County, 956 F.2d 696, 699 (7th Cir. 1992). In order to prevail on a conditions of confinement claim, a plaintiff must allege facts that, if true, would satisfy the objective and subjective components applicable to all Eighth Amendment claims. McNeil v. Lane, 16 F.3d 123, 124 (7th Cir. 1994); see also Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302 (1991). The objective component focuses on the nature of the acts or practices alleged to constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Jackson v. Duckworth, 955 F.2d 21, 22 (7th Cir. 1992). The objective analysis examines whether the conditions of confinement exceeded contemporary bounds of decency of a mature civilized society. Id. The condition must result in unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs or deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 347; accord Jamison-Bey v. Thieret, 867 F.2d 1046, 1048 (7th Cir. 1989); Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 416 (7th Cir 1987).
In addition to showing objectively serious conditions, a plaintiff must also demonstrate the subjective component to an Eighth Amendment claim. The subjective component of unconstitutional punishment is the intent with which the acts or practices constituting the alleged punishment are inflicted. Jackson, 955 F.2d at 22. The subjective component requires a prison official have a sufficiently culpable state of mind. Wilson, 501 U.S. at 298; see also McNeil, 16 F.3d at 124. In conditions of confinement cases, the relevant state of mind is deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety; the official must be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he also must draw the inference. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837; Wilson, 501 U.S. at 303; Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); DelRaine v. Williford, 32 F.3d 1024, 1032 (7th Cir. 1994). The deliberate indifference standard is satisfied if the plaintiff shows that the prison official acted or failed to act despite the official's knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. at 842. A failure of prison officials to act in such circumstances suggests that the officials actually want the prisoner to suffer the harm. Jackson, 955 F.2d at 22. It is well-settled that mere negligence is not enough. See, e.g., David v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1986).
Plaintiff states that he spoke with Defendant Uchtman about the cold and lack of ventilation in his cell, and that this caused him to have asthma attacks. It does not appear that his conditions changed as a result of this conversation. This is sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim regarding the extremely-cold and poorly-ventilated cell. Accordingly, Plaintiff may proceed against Defendant Uchtman on Count 2 of the complaint.
Plaintiff states that Defendant Schorn, a law librarian at Menard, refused to make copies for Plaintiff, thus causing two of his appeals to be dismissed and causing him to miss court deadlines in two cases.
"[T]he mere denial of access to a prison law library or to other legal materials is not itself a violation of a prisoner's rights; his right is to access the courts, and only if the defendants' conduct prejudices a potentially meritorious challenge to the prisoner's conviction, sentence, or conditions of confinement has this right been infringed." Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006). A prisoner's complaint must "spell out, in minimal detail, the connection between the alleged denial of access to legal materials and an inability to pursue a legitimate challenge to a conviction, sentence, or prison conditions." Id.
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant Schorn's refusal to assist him with copying his legal papers caused two of his appeals to be dismissed and caused him to miss deadlines in two other cases. Under the legal standards described above, Plaintiff has stated a claim. Plaintiff may proceed against Defendant Schorn on Count 3 of the complaint.
Plaintiff states that he filed a case in state court against Defendant Schorn. When he came to the library, Defendant Schorn falsely accused him of "curs[ing] her out," causing Plaintiff to be returned to segregation. Plaintiff states that Defendant Schorn's false accusation was in retaliation for the state lawsuit.
Prison officials may not retaliate against inmates for filing grievances or otherwise complaining about their conditions of confinement. See, e.g., Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002); DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000); Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1996); Cain v. Lane, 857 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, "[a]ll that need be specified is the bare minimum facts necessary to put the defendant on notice of the claim so that he can file an answer." Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002). Naming the suit and the act of retaliation is all that is necessary to state a claim of improper retaliation. Id.
Based on these legal standards, Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim of retaliation, and he may proceed against Defendant Schorn on Count 4 of the complaint.
Plaintiff states that Defendant Summers refused to allow him to call his attorney regarding a pending civil matter. Exhibits submitted with the complaint indicate that Plaintiff's denial of use of the telephone was a restriction based on his status in c-grade. He was informed in writing that to speak with his attorney, he would have to write him or her a letter requesting a return call. He also was informed that Legal Services at Menard would assist him in setting up the return call.
The Constitution does not recognize an inmate's liberty interest in telephone privileges, see Sandin v. Connor, 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995), and regulations limiting telephone use by inmates have been sustained routinely as reasonable. See, e.g., Arsberry v. Illinois, 244 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2001); Pope v. Hightower, 101 F.3d 1382, 1384-85 (11th Cir. 1996); Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1100 (6th Cir. 1994); Benzel v. Grammar, 869 F.2d 1105, 1108 (8th Cir. 1989); Martin v. Tyson, 845 F.2d 1451, 1458 (7th Cir. 1988); Strandberg v. City of Helena, 791 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 1986); Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982) (inmates have no right to unlimited telephone use). Moreover, Plaintiff is not completely barred from communicating with his attorney. He was specifically allowed to write his attorney to schedule a call. Although letter-writing may not be as efficient or timely a means of communication, the Constitution does not require that prison officials choose the least restrictive alternative. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 411 (1989).
Likewise, the telephone policy at Menard does not unconstitutionally restrict Plaintiff's access to the courts, as inmates have no right to any particular means of access to the courts, Shango v. Jurich, 965 F.2d 289, 293 (7th Cir. 1992). Further, Plaintiff has not identified any specific prejudice to contemplated litigation by his inability to contact his attorney by phone. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996). Therefore, he has not presented a viable constitutional claim regarding the restrictions on telephone access. Accordingly, Count 5 is DISMISSED with prejudice from the action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because Defendant Summers is associated only with this count of the complaint, she is DISMISSED as a defendant from the action.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare Form 1A (Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons) and Form 1B (Waiver of Service of Summons) for Defendants Prange, Uchtman, and Schorn. The Clerk shall forward those forms, USM-285 forms submitted by Plaintiff, and sufficient copies of the complaint to the United States Marshal for service.
The United States Marshal is DIRECTED, pursuant to Rule 4(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to serve process on Defendants Prange, Uchtman, and Schorn in the manner specified by Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Process in this case shall consist of the complaint, applicable Forms 1A and 1B, and this Memorandum and Order. For purposes of computing the passage of time under Rule 4(d)(2), the Court and all parties will compute time as of the date it is mailed by the Marshal, as noted on the USM-285 form.
With respect to former employees of Illinois Department of Corrections (I.D.O.C.) who no longer can be found at the work address provided by Plaintiff, the Department of Corrections shall furnish the Marshal with the Defendant's last-known address upon issuance of a Court order which states that the information shall be used only for purposes of effectuating service (or for proof of service, should a dispute arise) and any documentation of the address shall be retained only by the Marshal. Address information obtained from I.D.O.C. pursuant to such order shall not be maintained in the Court file nor disclosed by the Marshal.
The United States Marshal shall file returned waivers of service as well as any requests for waivers of service that are returned as undelivered as soon as they are received. If a waiver of service is not returned by any Defendant within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of mailing the request for waiver, the United States Marshal shall:
! Request that the Clerk of Court prepare a summons for that Defendant who has not yet returned a waiver of service; the Clerk shall then prepare such summons as requested.
! Personally serve process and a copy of this Order upon that Defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c).
! Within ten days after personal service is effected, the United States Marshal shall file the return of service for that Defendant, along with evidence of any attempts to secure a waiver of service of process and of the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service on said Defendant. Said costs shall be enumerated on the USM-285 form and shall include the costs incurred by the Marshal's office for photocopying additional copies of the summons and complaint and for preparing new USM-285 forms, if required. Costs of service will be taxed against the personally-served Defendant in accordance with the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) unless said Defendant shows good cause for such failure.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon their attorney(s), a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration by this Court. He shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of any document was mailed to Defendants or their counsel. Any paper received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a certificate of service will be disregarded by the Court.
Defendants are ORDERED to timely file an appropriate responsive pleading to the complaint and shall not waive filing a reply pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Local Rule of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois 72.1(a)(2), this cause is REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.
Further, this entire matter is hereby REFERRED to a United States Magistrate Judge for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a referral.
Plaintiff is under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of any change in his whereabouts. This shall be done in writing and not later than seven (7) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Finally, Plaintiff submitted a letter, which the Court construes as a motion requesting service of process. The Court has now completed its threshold review and has ordered service on the remaining defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for service (Doc. 6) is DENIED as moot.
G. Patrick Murphy Chief United States District Judge
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
18 Stafford Terrace: Linley Sambourne House
Home of Linley Sambourne, chief political cartoonist of Punch. Unique survival of a town house, complete with furnishing and decoration, which reflect the artistic taste of the period (1880s). Cartoons, pictures and photographs by Sambourne and friends. The house featured in the Merchant Ivory films 'A Room With A View' and 'Maurice', and in the BBC film 'The Enchanted April'.
Prices and Opening Times
|Adult Ticket:
|£7.00 to £12.00 (USD8.87) per ticket
|Concession Ticket:
|£5.00 to £8.00 (USD6.34) per ticket
Opening Times:
Admission is by public tour or during an open access session
Public tours:
Wednesday, Sunday 11:00
Saturday 11:00 (costumed tour)
Advance booking is essential.
Open access:
Wednesday, Saturday, Sunday: 14:00 - 17:30
No booking is required
Venue Details & Map
18 Stafford Terrace: Linley Sambourne House
- Address
18 Stafford TerraceLondonW8 7BH
- Telephone:
- +44 (0)20 7602 3316
- Public transport:
- Turn left out of the station and walk along the High Street taking a right into Phillimore Gardens and turn second right into Stafford Terrace or Argyll Rd and turn second
For comprehensive independently assessed accessible information for 18 Stafford Terrace: Linley Sambourne House, please see the DisabledGo website
TripAdvisor Reviews
Loading reviews for 18 Stafford Terrace: Linley Sambourne House
Are you a representative of 18 Stafford Terrace: Linley Sambourne House?
Respond to Reviews
Read more reviews on TripAdvisor
About TripAdvisor and Visit London
Please be advised that any comments, opinions and statements submitted herewith are entirely independent and do not represent views held by, or are in any way connected to visitlondon.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Jada Jarvis
9,427pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Jada Jarvis portrayed Midtown Student in Spider-Man: Homecoming.
- Jada Jarvis is one of the actresses to portray characters for both Marvel Studios and DC Entertainment. She portrayed Flea Market Kid Drummer in Gotham.
External Links
- Jada Jarvis on IMDb
- Jada Jarvis on Twitter
- Jada Jarvis on Instagram
- Jada Jarvis on Facebook
- Jada Jarvis on YouTube


text:
Dana "Red" Ashcraft
Dana "Red" Ashcraft, 83, of Miamisburg, Ohio passed away peacefully Sunday, Jan. 9, 2011 at his residence.
He was born on Nov. 10, 1927 in Greene County, Indi. to the late Doran and Mary (Pribble) Ashcraft. In addition to his parents, Dana is preceded in death by a brother Dorsey Ashcraft and a sister Amy Ethel Ashcraft.
He is survived by his loving wife of 65 years, Myrtle M. (Rans) Ashcraft; daughters, Joyce (Jan Russell) Ashcraft of Miamisburg and Bonnie (Terry) Singeltary of Bacliff, TX; a brother, James Ashcraft of Linton; grandchildren, Todd (Keri) Singeltary, Brad (Cinnimin) Singeltary, and Terry (Jaime) Singeltary Jr.; eight great-grandchildren; as well as numerous nieces, nephews and extended family.
Red worked many years as an asbestos insulator, where he was a member of the Heat and Frost Insulators Local #50 and proceeded to retire in 1985. He was also a member of the Miamisburg Moose Lodge 1645 and the Wednesday Night Twilighters Bowling League. Red was an avid fisherman, practical joker and always had a story to tell.
Funeral services were conducted Thursday, January 13 at Gebhart-Schmidt-Paramore Funeral Home in Miamisburg, Ohio, officiated by Chaplain Randy Reed.
Burial was in Highland Memorial Cemetery.
In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Hospice of Dayton, 324 Wilmington Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45420.


text:
Need a Lipid Panel Test in Delano, CA? Simply order online 24/7 and get a fast, affordable Lipid Panel Test at a lab near you (Find More Locations):
What is a Lipid Panel Test?
A Lipid Panel Test is a panel of lab tests that measure the lipid panel. People in Delano, CA order the Lipid Panel Test to get a baseline or for ongoing tracking.
How much does a Lipid Panel Test cost?
Our Lipid Panel Test price includes the doctor's order that you need to get tested in Delano, CA, all lab fees and taxes, and a pdf copy of your results. For current prices, please CLICK HERE.
What does a Lipid Panel Test lab report look like?
For a Lipid Panel Test sample report, please CLICK HERE.
We are delighted to offer the Lipid Panel Test in Delano, CA.
Lipid Panel Test in other cities near Delano, CA:Alpaugh | Bakersfield | Ducor | Earlimart | Mc Farland | Pixley | Porterville | Richgrove | Shafter | Strathmore | Terra Bella | Tipton | Visalia | Wasco | Woody
Limited Time Offer!
Save 5% on Your Order Today Only
Use Promo Code XTPUDSKLC
Offer Expires in


text:
Hiram Institute of Theatre
July 15 - 18, 2015 (Residential)
Age: Rising sophomores, juniors and seniors
Cost: $325
Hiram Institute of Theatre (HIT) is designed to be an acting-intensive program for students to focus primarily on a specific style of acting and musical performance. Dedicated high school students will focus their energy on learning the skills and values that make Vaudeville one of the most explosive forms of live theatre. Focus areas will include movement, dance, vocal quality, improvisational technique, and character study. HIT will conclude with a Saturday night exhibition that will be open to family and friends.
The objective of HIT is to instill the qualities of performance that dedicated actors gain through intensive training. By using the skills of the past, we can produce better performers for the future.
What is Vaudeville?
From the 1880s to the 1920s, Vaudeville was the most popular form of entertainment in America. At a time when America was becoming more culturally diverse, this form of variety show promised something for everyone. Magicians, jugglers, actors, dancers, comedians, musicians, acrobats, ventriloquists, and more promised "A Dazzling Display of Heterogeneous Splendor." Performers such as W.C. Fields, Buster Keaton, Kate Smith, the Three Stooges, Charlie Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, and Judy Garland began their careers in Vaudeville. In this workshop we will explore the history of Vaudeville and the beginnings of musical theatre, as we create our own entertainment with comedy routines, songs, dances, and other acts. From the truly talented, to the unusual and quirky, we can use it all. Bring your instruments, tap shoes, and individual talents!
Hiram College will award a $1,000 Summer Academy Scholarship to every high school student who attends a 2015 summer academy and enrolls as a full time student at Hiram College. Only one Summer Academy Scholarship will be awarded per new student. The scholarship is renewable up to four years. (For a total of $4,000 in scholarship award at $1,000 per year for four years.)
Who conducts the Hiram Institute of Theatre?
Betsy Bauman, Associate Professor of Theatre and Chair of the Theatre Department
Carl Skorepa, Technical Director and Designer, Theatre Department
Where is the Hiram Institute of Theatre?
The Hiram Institute of Theatre is a four-day, residential summer learning experience held on the Hiram College campus, located in Hiram, Ohio. Hiram's campus is a 45-minute drive from Cleveland and Akron. Participants will stay three nights in a residence hall.
View/Download Academy Materials
Other Requirements for Participation
Reference: On the registration form, students are asked to provide the name, title, telephone number and email address of a teacher or guidance counselor who is willing to serve as a reference on their behalf. We assume that references are aware that students have used their names and that they may be contacted.
Register Early! Space is Limited!
The first applicants to complete the registration process in its entirety and submit their full payment will be considered for acceptance. High school students who are rising sophomores, juniors and seniors are welcome to register. Spaces will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis.
The deadline for registration is July 1, 2015. Interested students are encouraged to register as soon as possible.
Notification of Acceptance
Once students have registered and paid in full, their registration materials will be reviewed by the faculty leading the institute. As soon as a student has been approved, Lisa Schneider will send out an email notifying the student that he or she has been accepted to attend.
A week or so before the Hiram Institute of Theatre, students will receive via email a link to materials for the institute including:
- Hiram Institute of Theatre Schedule
- Family Invitation to the performance on
- Emergency Medical Form (must be signed by your parent or guardian in order to participate)
- Directions to Hiram College
- Campus Map
- List of Items to Bring with You
Refund Policy
Full payment must accompany registration to be considered for acceptance. A full refund will be issued for those students not accepted into the academy. Students who choose to withdraw at least three weeks prior to the first day of the academy will receive a 50% refund. No refunds will be made after that date.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
February 28, 2012
T.W., PETITIONERv.DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, RESPONDENT
Argued: November 16, 2011
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge*fn1 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE RENEE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
T.W. (Perpetrator) petitions for review of an adjudication of the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (Department) which granted Crawford County Children and Youth Services" (CYS) application for reconsideration of the decision entered by the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (Bureau), set aside CYS" decision, and denied the Perpetrator"s appeal to expunge an indicated report of child abuse by the Perpetrator from the ChildLine Registry.*fn2 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Department"s adjudication.
This case involves C.H. (the child), a female child who was born on February 3, 2005, and was three years old at the time of the allegations that she was sexually abused by the Perpetrator, her step-grandfather. S.H. is the child"s mother, and the Perpetrator is married to L.W., the child"s maternal grandmother. From July 2005 through July 2007, the Perpetrator and the child"s maternal grandmother were the child"s court-appointed guardians and had physical custody of her. In July 2007, the child was returned to the custody of her mother. In September 2008, at the time of the alleged sexual abuse, the child lived in an apartment with her mother and her younger sister, E.H.
On September 10, 2008, CYS received an oral report that an incident of
child abuse had occurred on September 8, 2008, while the child and her
mother had been visiting the Perpetrator at his home. Specifically,
the child had told her mother that the Perpetrator had "touched her
down there" and went in all the way with his fingers." (Reproduced
Record at 3.) The child was examined by a physician several days
after the alleged incident but no evidence of trauma was found, only a
possible yeast or urinary tract infection. As part of CYS"
investigation, on September 18, 2008, the child was medically examined
at the Emergency Department at Saint Vincent Health Center (SVHC) by
Rhonda Henderson (Nurse Henderson), a Forensic Nurse Examiner. On that
date, Nurse Henderson made a report noting findings of a vaginal tear
and swelling. The report also noted her conversation with the child
in which the child stated that the Perpetrator had put his finger into
her vaginal area while she was in the tub
naked. CYS also conducted an interview with the child at the end of
September 2008, in which she identified the Perpetrator as her abuser.
The child was again physically examined at SVHC on October 1, 2008,
with Nurse Henderson finding that the vaginal or hymenal tear was
healing and there was also evidence of several anal tears that were
also healing. As a result of this information, the Department issued
an indicated report on November 7, 2008, that the Perpetrator had
sexually abused the child. The Perpetrator denied the allegations
and filed a request to expunge the indicated report.
A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on June 15, 2009,*fn3 at which time Lisa Pierro (Pierro), a forensic interviewer for CYS, testified that she interviewed the child on September 26, 2008, recorded the interview by audio and video and had three other individuals watching the interview from outside the room.*fn4 The child told her that "Poppy" had touched her in her private area, pointing to her vaginal area, and told Pierro that that part of her body was used for peeing. The child told her that she was naked when it happened and that she was in the bathtub. The child also told her "Poppy"s" first name was "T." Pierro stated that the child was fairly comfortable talking about the incident while she was coloring and doing things during the 15-minute interview, and at one point, she stood up and showed Pierro "what he did and where it was." (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 97.) Pierro also noted that the child told her these things with very little prompting, very matter of fact. The child, who was four years old and four months at the time of the hearing, testified that she did not remember that she had ever discussed the alleged abuse with anyone at CYS or that she had gone to the hospital for examinations. She denied being touched inappropriately by the Perpetrator. However, she admitted that the Perpetrator had taken a bath with her while he was naked (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 33), and stated that the last time she had a bath with him she did not want to but her mother made her. (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 37.) The child also stated that her mother and grandmother were home at the time of the baths but the door was closed, and they did not come into the bathroom at all. (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 35.)
Nurse Henderson testified regarding her first examination of the child on September 10, 2008, stating that the child told her that she was familiar with the male genitalia by calling a man"s "private part" a "stick-out thing" and then spontaneously stating that "Poppy showed me his stick-out thing." (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of
Testimony at 56.) When Nurse Henderson asked who "Poppy" was, the child identified the Perpetrator"s first name. Nurse Henderson continued to state that the child volunteered to her that Poppy showed her his stick-out thing all the time, had his clothes off in the bathtub, got in the tub with her, and put his finger in her private part. The child told Nurse Henderson that it hurt and she told the Perpetrator not to do that anymore. The child told Nurse Henderson that she told the Perpetrator that she would wash herself and not to do that.
Nurse Henderson then described the actual physical exam on September 10, 2008, with the child"s mother in attendance. She stated that she generally used two positions to examine children: a frog-leg position for the vaginal exam and a knee-chest position for the anal exam. While doing the frog-leg position with the child on her back and her feet in the air and using a clock as a reference, Nurse Henderson stated that from ten o"clock to 12 o"clock and 12 o"clock to three o"clock there was a hypo-vascularity - a redness present caused by some sort of irritation. There was an appearance of a tear from nine o"clock to six o"clock. From the labia major, she noted a healing superficial tear at six o"clock approximately one centimeter. Nurse Henderson stated that the injury that the child had was consistent with a penetrating type of injury and was consistent with digital penetration. She also stated that when she attempted to do the knee-chest position for an anal exam, the child began sobbing and she could not perform the examination.
Regarding the October 1, 2008 exam, Nurse Henderson stated that the child told her that she remembered her first visit and when asked if anyone had touched her, she said "Poppy." When Nurse Henderson asked the child where she had been touched, the child pointed to her crotch and anal area. When asked with what she had been touched, the child replied, "his finger." Regarding her physical exam, Nurse Henderson stated that she was able to perform both types of tests and found evidence of healing tears to the vaginal and anal areas, specifically, four separate tears in the child"s anal tissue.*fn5 Nurse Henderson opined that the injuries she saw on September 18, 2008, likely occurred within two weeks before her first examination, and the anal injuries also occurred during that same time frame and perhaps during the same reported incident. She presented photographs of the injuries she described along with her reports.
The Perpetrator testified that he had been married to the child"s grandmother for 10 years and had two children, a girl age 14 who lived with him and a son age 24. He also had a total of five grandchildren. The Perpetrator adamantly denied that he ever sexually abused the child and he did not bathe with her or sexually abuse her on September 8, 2008. He admitted that he did take baths with her prior to September 2008 but when he did, it was because his wife would bring her in and ask him to clean her up. However, he would always have swimming trunks on. (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 108.) He explained that either his wife or the child"s mother would be in there with him to clean her up and wash her hair. (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 123). The Perpetrator could not remember the last time he actually took a bath with the child because it had been so long ago and he did not make it a habit. He also told the child that she was getting too old to take a bath with him even though she was bound and determined to come into the bathtub while he was bathing. (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 111.) The Perpetrator testified that he did take baths by himself to relax after work. The Perpetrator noted that whenever a child was getting a bath, the door always remained open. He also denied that the child called him "Poppy" and instead stated that she always called him "Papa." (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 117.)
The child"s grandmother testified that she was the child"s grandmother. She stated that previously, her daughter had been unstable and irresponsible due to substance abuse problems and she and her husband had received primary physical custody of the child from July 2005 through July 2007. The child"s grandmother admitted that her husband had bathed with the child at times but it was always with her in the bathroom. The child"s grandmother denied that the Perpetrator was ever naked in the bath with the child or any of the grandchildren, and she was always in the bathroom helping him bathe the child. The child"s grandmother stated that the Perpetrator never exposed himself to the child, the child never complained of pain and never cried. The child"s grandmother could not remember the last time a bath took place at her home, but she said it was not a common occurrence and only happened when her daughter was over their house when the girls were little. On cross-examination, however, the child"s grandmother stated that sometime in September, her daughter came over to her home to do laundry, and the child did take a bath with the Perpetrator.*fn6 The child"s grandmother also admitted that she talked to the child prior to the hearing and asked her "do you remember talking to some strange people that I don"t know and that you probably don"t remember, but saying something that you said Papa did to you." (June 15, 2009 Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 143.)
Last to testify was L.B. (Aunt), also a step-daughter of the Perpetrator and aunt to the child. The Aunt stated that she had two young boys and she allowed the Perpetrator to baby-sit them whenever she did not want to pay for a babysitter, which was just a few months prior. She testified that she never had any concerns with the Perpetrator being alone with her children and described him as the perfect grandfather. She did not believe what her sister and niece were accusing him of doing. She stated that whenever the Perpetrator would bathe his granddaughters, he would always wear swim shorts. Further, everyone would always be in the house and the bathroom was not far from the living room. "And you can pretty much see from all the back bedroom areas, the bathroom. And you can hear, from the living room, anything that goes on in the bathroom. And when he gave baths, the door was always open." (June 15, 2009
Hearing, Notes of Testimony at 156.) She stated that her mom would sometimes go in there and sometimes she would go in there. As for her sister, she stated that sometimes her sister would drop her girls off at the Perpetrator"s house and ask them to take the kids. However, she was not at the Perpetrator"s house in September on the date in question.
The ALJ admitted the child"s hearsay disclosures to Pierro based upon Pierro"s testimony and found the testimony of Pierro and Henderson credible. She rejected the child"s testimony on the day of the hearing as not credible because the child"s grandmother had questioned the child prior to the hearing and tainted the child"s testimony. The ALJ also found the Aunt"s testimony credible, but rejected the testimony of the Perpetrator and the child"s grandmother as not credible. Based on these credibility determinations and the physical evidence of penetration, the ALJ found that the Perpetrator had sexually abused the child. However, pursuant to Section 6303(a) of the Child Protective Services Law (Law), 23 Pa. C.S. §6303(a), the ALJ found that the Perpetrator was not a "perpetrator" of sexual abuse within the meaning of that statute. Under that section of the Law, a "perpetrator" is defined as "[a] person who has committed child abuse and is a parent of a child, a person responsible for the welfare of a child, an individual residing in the same home as a child or a paramour of a child"s parent." Because the injuries alleged to have occurred in September 2008 happened when the child no longer lived in the Perpetrator"s house and he was no longer her legal guardian, the ALJ determined that the Perpetrator did not meet any of these definitions.*fn7
The Bureau adopted the ALJ"s recommendation and ordered the indicated report of abuse by the Perpetrator be expunged. CYS requested reconsideration from the Department arguing that a "perpetrator" included anyone who was responsible for the welfare of a child, which included a person who provided temporary care or supervision. It contended that the record established that the abuse occurred when the Perpetrator was the only adult in the bathtub, and he was at least temporarily responsible for the welfare of the child, thereby satisfying the statutory definition. The Department agreed, granted reconsideration, and issued a final order setting aside the Bureau"s order and denying the Perpetrator"s appeal. The Department stated:
Regulations, in pertinent part, define a "person responsible for the child"s welfare" as a person, who provides permanent or temporary care, supervision...in lieu of parental care, supervision and control. 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6303(a).
Here, the hearing transcript reveals that the Appellant babysat the child and even bathed her at times, with no other adult present. As such, I find that the Appellant is a person, who was responsible for the child"s welfare and provided temporary care, when the parent was not present.
(Reproduced Record at 72.) This appeal by the Perpetrator followed.*fn8
23 Pa. C.S. §6303(a) defines "Perpetrator" as "[a] person who has committed child abuse and is a parent of a child, a person responsible for the welfare of a child, an individual residing in the same home as a child or a paramour of a child"s parent." 23 Pa. C.S. §6303(a) then defines "Person responsible for the child's welfare," in pertinent part, as:
A person who provides permanent or temporary care, supervision, mental health diagnosis or treatment, training or control of a child in lieu of parental care, supervision and control.
(Emphasis added.) If a child is injured while in the temporary care, supervision and control of a person, that person could be held criminally responsible if that conduct was deemed to be criminally negligent. "In lieu of parental care, supervision and control" does not necessarily mean that the parent has actually entrusted the child to the temporary care of the other person, but it presumes that the person who has taken over that responsibility will provide the same care and supervision while the child is on his or her watch.
In this case, the Perpetrator argues that he did not even have temporary control of the child because he was never alone with the child in September 2008 as the child"s mother or grandmother was in the bathroom during the bath. The Perpetrator"s argument fails for two reasons.
First, although he contends that he only took a bath with the child in September 2008 while either the child"s mother or grandmother was present, neither the ALJ nor the Department found him credible. They also did not find his wife credible that someone was always in the bathroom with him while he bathed his grandchildren. (See Finding of Facts 25 and 30.)*fn9 While the ALJ did not find the child"s testimony credible, the Secretary of the Department did, and the Secretary is designated with final fact finding authority in expunction cases. See A.O. v. Department of Public Welfare, 838 A.2d 35 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). In stating that "the hearing transcript reveals that the [Perpetrator] babysat the child and even bathed her at times, with no other adult present" (June 23, 2010 Order), the Secretary implicitly found that portion of the child"s testimony credible when she stated that the door to the bathroom was closed when she took baths with the Perpetrator who was naked, and that no one came into the bathroom during those times. Because the Secretary did not find the Perpetrator credible but did find the child"s statement that she bathed alone with the Perpetrator to be credible, that constitutes substantial evidence to support the Department"s conclusion that the Perpetrator bathed the child at times with no other adult present.
Second, even if the Perpetrator was not alone with the child and the child"s mother was in the bathroom while the Perpetrator was bathing the child, the Perpetrator"s argument still fails because he still would have had temporary care of the child in lieu of her mother as he was primarily responsible for the child"s safety while bathing her. He would have been supervising and controlling the child because he alone was in charge of her safety while in the bathtub. As for the grandmother being present, the question of who was supervising the child would not even be an issue because the grandmother was not a parent, and the statute would not apply.
Consequently, because the only facts found credible by the Department were that the Perpetrator was alone naked with the child while bathing her when the sexual assault took place, Perpetrator meets the definition of a "person responsible for the child"s welfare" and a "perpetrator."
Accordingly, the order of the Department is affirmed.
No. 1487 C.D. 2010
T.W., : Petitioner : v. Department of Public Welfare, : Respondent
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2011, the order of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, dated June 23, 2010, is affirmed.
T.W., Petitioner v. Department of Public Welfare, : Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge
HONORABLE RENEE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: February 28, 2012
The Child Protective Services Law defines a "perpetrator" as a person who provides care for a child "in lieu of" the parent. 23 Pa. C.S. §6303(a). The majority holds that one can be acting in lieu of a parent even if the parent is present, which departs from the words of the statute. In any case, the factual findings of the adjudication are so elliptical and contradictory, they escape meaningful appellate review. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
The ALJ found that T.W. (Grandfather) had sexually abused his step- granddaughter C.H. (Child) while giving her a bath. At the hearing, Child, who was four years old at the time, testified that she and Grandfather were alone in the bathroom on the day identified by Children and Youth Services (CYS) as the day on which Child was abused. However, Child also testified at the hearing that
Grandfather did not touch or hurt her and that she liked taking baths with him. The ALJ found Child"s hearing testimony "non-sensical" and assigned it zero credibility. Instead, the ALJ based her finding of sexual abuse upon Child"s out-of-court statements to Rhonda Henderson, a forensic nurse and Lisa Pierro, a CYS employee, that Child had made nine months earlier. Notably, Child"s statement to Pierro was recorded on videotape, but CYS did not offer that recording into evidence. Grandfather adamantly denied abusing Child and denied that he was ever alone with Child on the day in question, but his testimony was not believed by the ALJ.*fn1
Notwithstanding the ALJ"s finding that Grandfather abused Child, she concluded that he was not a "perpetrator" within the meaning of the law because he was not providing care "in lieu" of Child"s mother (Mother) when the abuse occurred. The ALJ made one factual finding relevant to whether Grandfather had custodial responsibility for Child when the abuse occurred:
In early September 2008, [Grandfather] was not residing in the same home as [Child], a paramour of [Child"s] mother or a person responsible for the welfare of [Child] in lieu of parental supervision.*fn2
ALJ Adjudication, Finding of Fact No. 31 (emphasis added). In support of her decision to grant Grandfather"s request to expunge the indicated report of abuse, the ALJ explained as follows:
[Grandfather] was [Child"s] legal guardian from July 2005
through July 2007 when, presumably, he would have met the regulatory definition of perpetrator, but there is simply no evidence presented by [CYS] that [Grandfather] was a perpetrator as that word is defined by the governing regulation in September 2008.
ALJ Adjudication at 11 (emphasis added).
The Bureau adopted the ALJ"s adjudication, and CYS sought reconsideration from the Secretary of Public Welfare. It argued that Grandfather did meet the definition of a perpetrator because he was alone in the bathroom with Child and, thus, was acting in lieu of Mother when the abuse occurred. This temporary custody, CYS argued, made Grandfather a perpetrator. CYS"s argument in support of reconsideration closed with the statement that:
The Bureau failed to consider the fact that [Child] testified that she was alone with [Grandfather] in the bathtub when he abused her. See TR, June 15, 2009, 30-38.
Application for Reconsideration, Reproduced Record at 68 (R.R. ___). In actuality, Child denied any abuse and, in any case, her testimony was found not credible. The Secretary granted reconsideration and found Grandfather to meet the definition of perpetrator. In support, the Secretary reasoned:
Here, the hearing transcript reveals that [Grandfather] babysat the child and even bathed her at times, with no other adult present. As such, I find that [Grandfather] is a person who was responsible for the child"s welfare and provided temporary care, when the parent was not present.
Final Order, ¶3, R.R. 72 (emphasis in original). This single paragraph contains the sum total of the factual findings and analysis of the Secretary in her Final Order denying Grandfather"s request to expunge the indicated report of abuse.
On appeal, Grandfather argues that the Secretary erred. First, he notes that the ALJ did not find that he was alone with Child during the bath. Second, the "hearing transcript" does not support a finding that the two were alone during the bath. Accordingly, Grandfather argues that the evidence did not establish that he had even temporary custody of Child.
There is a reason why the Child Protective Services Law does not define "perpetrator" as any person who commits an act of child abuse. The ChildLine Registry does not function as a kind of Megan"s Law that gives notice to the world of the whereabouts of "indicated" child predators. The ChildLine Registry was established for those needing a background check of prospective child care providers, who might serve as foster parents, teachers or daycare workers. Accordingly, the Child Protective Services Law has given a precise meaning to "perpetrator," i.e., it must be a person who has provided care of a child "in lieu of" the parent. Further, the indicated report of abuse is stricken from the ChildLine Registry when the child victim reaches age 23. 23 Pa. C.S. §6338(b).
It follows, therefore, that before an agency can issue an indicated report of child abuse, it must be able to provide evidence that the parent, or legal guardian, has transferred control of a child to the person charged with abuse. For example, in
K.J. v. Department of Public Welfare, 767 A.2d 609 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), the parents of a victim entrusted the care of their child for 20 minutes to a babysitter, who was found to be a perpetrator by virtue of his temporary custody. The record in K.J. established the transfer of custodial care from the parent to the babysitter.
Here, there is no evidence of a transfer of custody. Grandmother testified that Child herself initiated the bath by asking to join her sister who was already in the bath. Grandmother was not believed.*fn3 Child testified that Mother made her bathe with Grandfather, suggesting that Mother was present, also defeating a finding of transfer. However, Child was not believed. Indeed, the ALJ dismissed her testimony as "non-sensical." CYS could have called Mother to testify that she transferred temporary custody of Child to her parents, but Mother did not testify. CYS presented no evidence, as found by the ALJ, that Mother had transferred custody of Child to Grandfather. See ALJ Adjudication at 11.
Mother"s sister (Aunt) was the only family witness whose testimony was credited by the ALJ. She described her parents" home as a "beach resort," with family coming and going. R.R. 117. Aunt is the mother of two young sons, ages six and three, and has also asked Grandfather to allow her sons to join him in the bath on occasions when they got dirty after playing outside. Aunt confirmed that Grandfather wore swimming trunks during these baths, presumably because of the traffic in and out of the bathroom. She herself would often sit in the bathroom and chat with the bathers. Aunt acknowledged that Grandfather had at times bathed her sons with no other adults in the bathroom, but she also stated that other adults were nearby and the door was always open. Aunt described the house as small, with the bathroom only a few steps from the living room and close enough that "you can hear everything."
R.R. 117. Aunt described Grandfather as the "perfect grandfather" and testified that she did not believe the charge of sexual abuse. R.R. 117.
The Secretary found that Grandfather bathed Child, "with no other adult present," based on the "hearing transcript."*fn4 The Secretary also concluded that the absence of other adults was, in itself, enough to establish Grandfather"s temporary custody of Child. There are several problems with the Secretary"s findings, beginning with the "hearing transcript," which contains conflicting reports and is missing other critical evidence.
First, there was no testimony from any witness who was found credible by the ALJ that Child was alone with Grandfather during the bath in question. Grandfather and his wife, Grandmother, who is the biological grandmother of Child, both testified. They stated that they bathed Child together and that Child was never alone with Grandfather. Child said she was alone, but she was not believed. Neither Henderson nor Pierro, who were believed, testified that Child ever told them she was alone in the bathroom when the abuse occurred. Aunt, who was believed, did not testify that Child was alone with Grandfather on the occasion in question.
Second, although the Secretary is free to reverse the ALJ"s credibility determinations, it is not even clear that this is what the Secretary intended. The ALJ made very specific credibility determinations of the fact witnesses after viewing their demeanor. The Secretary may make different credibility determinations, but they should be express and be explained. In Stoner v. Bureau of Professional and Occupation Affairs, State Board of Medicine, 10 A.3d 364, 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), appeal denied, __ Pa. __, 34 A.3d 834 (2011), we explained that the State Board of Medicine could not reverse the credibility determinations of its hearing officer without " explain[ing] its decision in sufficient detail to permit meaningful appellate review."" Id. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has expressly provided that where the adjudicator has the power to reverse the credibility determinations of the hearing officer who actually observed the witnesses, it must explain its decision in sufficient detail to show the finding is based on substantial evidence of record. R. v. Department of Public Welfare, 535 Pa. 440, 446, 636 A.2d 142, 145 (1994).
Both Child and Grandfather testified that Grandfather did not touch Child inappropriately or hurt her, but they were not found credible. Aunt testified in support of their statements. Aunt did not testify on the critical factual questions of how and when Mother transferred control of Child or whether Child was bathed on the day in question with "no other adults present." Aunt"s testimony, including her statement that Grandfather was "the perfect grandfather," was found credible, but the ALJ did not reconcile this credited character assessment with her finding that Grandfather had sexually abused Child. Neither did the Secretary. The Secretary did not explain whether or what extent she intended to reverse any of the credibility determinations of the ALJ, and this is necessary for meaningful appellate review.
Third, Child"s out-of-court statements to Henderson and Pierro attested to sexual abuse. However, neither Henderson nor Pierro testified that Child made any statement relevant to the critical question of how and when Mother transferred control of Child to Grandfather or whether Child was alone in the bathroom with Grandfather. CYS did not offer Child"s videotaped interview of Child"s statement but, rather, Pierro"s testimony about what Child said in the interview.
A.Y. v. Department of Public Welfare, 537 Pa. 116, 641 A.2d 1148 (1994), is the leading case on the use and admissibility of a child victim"s out-of- court statements. In A.Y., as here, the county Children and Youth Services Agency did not offer either a verbatim transcript of the victim"s statement or even a recording.
Instead, the Agency was able to rely on its own employees" recitation of what the three-year-old stated had occurred. The effect of this procedure was to totally deny the appellant the ability to review or challenge the evidence against her, and perhaps more importantly, it prevented the hearing officer from having any opportunity to judge the evidence except through the prism provided by the Agency. We think more is required.
Id. at 125, 641 A.2d at 1152 (emphasis added).
This is what happened here. CYS relied upon its own employees" recitation of what the three-year-old Child stated. Neither Henderson"s report nor the transcript of Pierro"s interview of Child was provided to Grandfather"s counsel before the hearing. More importantly, the ALJ was required to judge Child"s hearsay statements filtered "through the prism provided by the Agency." This is problematic for two reasons. First, the ALJ found Child"s testimony at the hearing non-sensical and not credible and may have reached the same conclusion had she viewed the recorded interview. Second, at least part of Child"s statement to Pierro was not believed because it did not make it into the indicated report of abuse. Child reported that after the bath in question, Grandfather took Child"s younger sister (Sister)
outside to the porch where he "put his finger in her pee pee." R.R. 92. Child also reported to Henderson, according to her notes, that Grandfather hurt Sister and made her cry. Sister was not made a part of the report of indicated abuse.
The majority glosses over the Secretary"s failure to make clear findings of fact by concluding that it does not matter whether or not Child was alone with Grandfather during the bath. The majority holds that Grandfather was a "perpetrator" because he had physical control of Child while she was in the bath. Every opportunistic pedophile who snatches a child randomly has physical control of his victim, but the indicated report targets only those abusers who act in lieu of a parent when the abuse occurs. The majority"s construction renders the requirement that a perpetrator act "in lieu" of the parent meaningless.
Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that there may be more than one "perpetrator." For example, if Mother had been called as a witness and then testified that she asked Grandfather and Grandmother to bathe Child while she did laundry in the basement, that evidence would show the requisite transfer of parental care. If the ALJ also found that abuse took place in the presence of both grandparents, then both grandparents would be listed in the ChildLine Registry as "perpetrators."
On the other hand, if the only other adult present during the abuse had been Mother, then she, not Grandfather, was the "perpetrator" within the meaning of the Child Protective Services Law. Mother would also be a criminal for not intervening on her daughter"s behalf. If Grandfather had committed the abuse while Mother stood by, Grandfather would be acting as Mother"s partner in crime and, like all criminals, should be prosecuted. He would not, however, be acting in place of Mother.
The point is that a "perpetrator" is one who acts in lieu of a parent. CYS should have had Mother testify on the transfer of Child"s control, but it did not. This was why the ALJ complained that "there is simply no evidence presented by [CYS] that [Grandfather] was a perpetrator as that word is defined in the governing regulation." ALJ Adjudication at 11.
In our appellate review, this Court must determine whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the law has been properly applied. The county agency bears the burden of proving all of the essential issues in an expungement proceeding, and they must be addressed by the Department of Public Welfare. See Manor v. Department of Public Welfare, 796 A.2d 1020, 1030 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). When this is not done, we are precluded from conducting meaningful appellate review. Salters v. Pennsylvania State Police Municipal Police Officers" Education and Training Commission, 912 A.2d 347, 355 (Pa. Cwmlth. 2006) (agency adjudication must contain findings of fact which are sufficiently detailed so that this Court can conduct meaningful appellate review). Where the findings are not sufficiently detailed, remand is appropriate. See Manor, 796 A.2d at 1030.
The Secretary"s final order does not contain specific findings of fact or express credibility determinations. 2 Pa. C.S. §507. The Secretary"s single reference to the hearing transcript is too general to have meaning, particularly given the fact that most of the hearing testimony was found not credible by the ALJ who heard the testimony. Further, the Secretary"s finding that Grandfather was alone with Child at the time the abuse occurred is not enough to make him a perpetrator. There must also be a finding that Mother transferred parental care to him.
For these reasons, I would vacate the Secretary"s adjudication and remand the matter for specific findings of fact on who was present when the abuse occurred and whether Grandfather acted "in lieu" of Mother.
MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
Judge Brobson joins in this dissenting opinion.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
View Booking
Email ID
Booking ID / Transaction No.
Register for Nivalink! it's free & takes about a minute
Already have a Nivalink Account?
Connect with Facebook to simplify Nivalink registration
By clicking "Finish" I agree to Nivalink's
Terms of Use
Forgot your password?
Need an Account?
It's free and takes a minute
Please enter the email address you registered with and we will send you a confirmation
mail to reset your password
To be sure you are able to complete the validation process, please add
"firstname.lastname@example.com" to your address book
Thank You. We have sent you an e-mail to your e-mail id
You can always call us at 022-61506363 or e-mail us at
270 reviews
Goveia Holiday Resort is a mid-segment resort at Candolim (Goa), few minutes walk from the beach
"North Goa" as its referred comprises Baga-Calangute-Candolim-Sinquerim, all different ends to a single stretch of beach, which gets visitors from all over India and has made Goa the world renowned destination. more
Goveia Holiday Homes
Opposite Cafe Coffee Day, Next to Aradi Sub Station, CandolimNorth Goa, Goa
Room Amenities: Hot Water, Color TV - LCD or LED, Air Conditioning, Mini Bar, Direct Dial Telephone, Queen Size Bed, Ceiling Fan, Tea or Coffee Maker
Room Amenities: Hot Water, Color TV - LCD or LED, Air Conditioning, Mini Bar, Direct Dial Telephone, Electronic Keys, King Size Bed, Ceiling Fan
Room Amenities: Hot Water, Color TV - LCD or LED, Air Conditioning, Mini Bar, Direct Dial Telephone, Queen Size Bed, Ceiling Fan
TripAdvisor Traveller Rating
Based on 270 reviews
We had booked 4 Double room from 2nd november to 6th November, 2016.
The room cleanliness is -0000001, The curtains they put to the windows that was not washed from so many months. They provide pool...
Room & serive was effecient. Pool was quite and big and good. Cleanliness was there. Goan food was excellent. Restaurnt manager was of very good and friendly nature and always ready to serve you...
do not go there. terrible.waste of your time and money.dark dingy.pool dirty.rooms dirty.could not eat /drink there. too far away from everything. long lonely lane to walk up to get there. terrible...
1 x Deluxe Room (Per Night Tarrif) = Rs. 3,000
1 x Family Room (Per Night Tarrif) = Rs. 5,000
Check out our Recommendations and Travel Ideas for North Goa
Check out our Service Add Ons and Transport Options for North Goa
Complete our Trip Request Form, it will only take a minute of your time.


text:
Can anyone recommend a #private money# lender (preferred) or #funding company that will accept a #balloon payment upon sale of a #rehab project? I am considering buying properties in Broward County Florida and having it rehabbed using professional project management before selling.
- Jul 3, 2015 2015-07-03 18:51:41
- Fort Lauderdale, FL


text: Pitch-in-Records Rhythm orientated Dance Music!!! firstname.lastname@example.com Lübeck The industry is changing. Some see it as a Rebellion; i see it as a Revolution. In the beginning of the year 2010 in germany, the birth date and location of a new independent record label that will pay homage to the best of times in electronic music history while keeping its focus wired tightly to the future. The Pitch-in-Record Label is the brainchild of music industry veteran Florian Ehlers who share a refreshing and respectful love of music. The result is a progressive, twenty-first century music entertainment company that utilizes cutting-edge Internet strategies, while establishing uncompromising principles. .. www.facebook.com/pitch.in.records.official for questions and demos :send to : email@example.com Pitch-in-Records's tracks Florian Ehlers- Away / Out Soon on Pitch-in-Records by Pitch-in-Records published on 2013/09/16 12:53:25 +0000 Florian Ehlers - NEW Out Soon by Pitch-in-Records published on 2013/09/16 12:45:11 +0000 Florian Ehlers - Streets Preview / by Pitch-in-Records published on 2013/01/22 12:18:49 +0000


text:
Odoo Help
This community is for beginners and experts willing to share their Odoo knowledge. It's not a forum to discuss ideas, but a knowledge base of questions and their answers.
Your question has already been replied:
Answers may arrive late and sometimes never arrive, I also have questions w/o answers in this forum. Be patient and read the guidelines to avoid receiving negative votes:
Please avoid asking questions that are too subjective and argumentative or not relevant to this community. This Q&A is not the place to rant. You can join the community mailing lists for subjective discussions.
Source: https://www.odoo.com/forum/help-1/faq
Your Answer
Please try to give a substantial answer. If you wanted to comment on the question or answer, just use the commenting tool. Please remember that you can always revise your answers - no need to answer the same question twice. Also, please don't forget to vote - it really helps to select the best questions and answers!
About This Community
Question tools
|Asked: 8/18/15, 9:52 AM
|Seen: 512 times
|Last updated: 8/18/15, 11:04 PM


text:
"Athens Visitor and Welcome Center" Athens Things to Do Tip by keeweechic
Athens Things to Do: 22 reviews and 37 photos
The visitor centre is right opposite the Henderson County Courthouse and there are two ladies there who can help you with any brochures or information of the area. There are plenty of brochures on other areas as well outside of Athens.
Address: 124 N. Palestine, Athens
More Things to Do in Athens (14)
1 - 0 of 0
More Reviews (18)
keeweechic's Related Pages
"Travel is the greatest eye opener you will ever get."
- Member Rank:
- 0 0 0 1 7
- 10,970 Reviews
- 17,722 Photos
- Add Friend
- Follow
- Send Message
Have you been to Athens?Share Your Travels


text:
DialAmerica, one of the nation's largest privately held teleservices companies, today announced the expansion of its contact center operations at 900 Commerce Drive in Oak Brook, IL. To support growing client demand, DialAmerica will be doubling the facility's footprint to about 25,000 square-feet, and plans to hire more than 100 contact center agents.
The Oak Brook facility supports business-to-business (B2B) sales and marketing campaigns for a wide portfolio of companies in the education, financial services, technology, and healthcare industries among others. DialAmerica's specialized B2B agents help customers gain in-depth knowledge of its clients' products and services. The contact center also drives lead- and demand-generation programs for companies, helping sales forces be more productive and effective at closing sales and growing revenue.
"Companies turn to DialAmerica for its proven expertise in using inbound and outbound teleservices to drive sales," said Jeffrey Stewart, senior director of contact center operations, DialAmerica. "Demand for our B2B solutions, and for our specialized group of experienced agents, continues to grow year-over-year. Many of our B2B agents are experienced professionals who hold college degrees. They are thoroughly trained to understand our clients' products and can comfortably engage corporate executives and other professionals. The expansion of our Oak Brook facility will allow us to grow our great pool of talent over the next several months, so that we can continue to scale up to the needs of our clients."
Employees at DialAmerica enjoy benefits such as flexible work hours, including a four-day work week; a comprehensive paid training program; and competitive salaries (guaranteed base pay plus incentives). As part of DialAmerica's comprehensive training programs, new employees will participate in one-on-one coaching sessions and small training classes lead by experienced DialAmerica sales professionals.
Candidates interested in joining DialAmerica can view all available positions, including job responsibilities, and submit an employment application online at careers.dialamerica.com, or contact Angela Ligue at (630-573-2000 or firstname.lastname@example.com.
About DialAmerica
One of the nation's largest privately held teleservices companies, DialAmerica provides customized, cost-effective customer acquisition and customer service contact center solutions. Started in 1957, the company was named one of the 'Top 50 Teleservices Agencies for 2012' by Customer Interaction Solutions; ranking number one in outbound U.S. Domestic Teleservices and fifth in inbound U.S. domestic services. DialAmerica's contact center agents conduct more than 300,000 customer interactions, per day, for a diverse portfolio of clients in multiple industry sectors, including consumer products, communications, energy, financial services, food services, fundraising, healthcare, leisure, pharmaceutical, technology, travel, among others. Headquartered in Mahwah, N.J., DialAmerica's network of U.S.-based contact centers spans 23 locations across 13 states. To learn more about DialAmerica, visit www.dialamerica.com.
Media Contacts:
Antonia Caamaño
CooperKatz & Company for DialAmerica
(917) 595-3053
Marcus Hardy
CooperKatz & Company for DialAmerica
(917) 595-3043


text:
Reviewed By Richard W (Oceanside, CA) Reviewed for a 2002 Chevy Camaro —4/7/2011 1:09 PM
Somewhat easy to install.
Reviewed By Aaron B (ORANGE, TX) Reviewed for a 2012 Chevy Silverado —3/27/2014 11:25 AM
Before I lifted my truck, I was always worried that I'd over extend the bags when flexing the suspension even if it was turning into a steep driveway or parking lot...thes eliminated that completely!
Reviewed By Josh G (Hancock, IA) —11/30/2016 4:04 AM
These are my 3 set of firestone airbags and I couldn't be happier. Installation is easy and the ride is much more stable. Whether you're empty or pulling heavy equipment, these get the job done. 2002 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Duramax 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD 6.0 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD Duramax


text:
If interested in this pet, please go to www.cares4pets.net and fill out an application for adoption. You must fill out an application in order to meet the pets at our appointment only rescue shelter.
For more information on this pet, please go to
www.cares4pets.net and fill out an application for adoption.
C.A.R.E.S. does not allow (De-Clawing) of any of our cats or kittens.
Meet purr machine J.Z. Redland, she is approx 5 monts old. She is adorable and sweet and loving. Her and her sister J.P. were rescued out of the dumping grounds of Redland. Florida. They were at a nursery and socialized with dogs, chickens and other cats. These two lucky girls will steal your heart.
We are listing J.Z. as part Maine Coon because of her size compared to her liter mate and her hair. She has tuffs in her ears and feet and she is medium haired, we feel she has the Maine Coon temperament. We would really like to adopt both of them together if possible.
J.Z.'s adoption fee is $75.00 ($100 for both)
Call Diane for more information (727) 710-2562
If interested in this pet, please go to www.cares4pets.net and fill out an application for adoption.
All interested adopters must fill out an application for adoption located on our website. The review process could take up to 3 days, but we do try to complete the process within 24hrs. Adoption fees range from 150.00 to 250.00 depending on the medical care provided to each pet. We are an appointment only rescue. Please remember all pets in the home must be spayed and neutered to be considered as a potential adopter.
Thank You!
Your message has been sent to CARES(Community Animal Rescue & Educational Shelter).
You'll receive a copy, too, at to help you keep track of which pets you've inquired about, and which shelters and rescues you've emailed.
NOTE: Some shelters have physical locations you can visit; some of these shelters may only have pets for a limited time, so please do not wait for a reply—just go visit the shelter! Other organizations are rescue groups run by busy volunteers who may take a while to reply. You can find information about the shelter or rescue group caring for this pet, and their adoption procedures, on the pet's details page on Adopt-a-Pet.com.


text:
This is where you can find guidance and advice on life and support on the big 'issues' from our online mentors. From the lows, such as illness or bereavement, to the highs, like caring for a new baby or starting a new relationship.
Life is full of situations when you think 'I wish I could talk to someone who's done this before'. Well, now you can. On horsesmouth our mentors are here to offer you the benefit of their personal perspective based on their own experiences. They're not professionals and their life advice is informal so try to talk to a range of people - and always consult professional advisers for formal advice. But people here have volunteered to life coach, they don't know you and are therefore less likely to be judgmental about your issues than perhaps friends and family would be. Think of it as the kindness of strangers... on tap
Probably the biggest category of all; love, friendship, relationships, marriage, kids, parents, relatives and the rest. It does make the world go round but often it can turn it pear-shaped too. Find someone here who's willing to talk and share.
Whether your issue is fitness or illness, whether it's physical or mental, whether it's you or someone you love, talking to someone about it can be a part of making you feel better. Find someone here who's been in your shoes.
If you're confused about your own or others' identity and beliefs, whether they relate to gender, religion, race or sexuality there's bound to be people here who've had similar experiences or are living with the same issues.
Whether or not it's how we make a living, discovering and fulfilling our talents and passions will help make us happier. It could be food, gardening, DIY, sports or the arts. Find people here who share your enthusiasms and can help you get the most out of them.
If you're selling, borrowing or buying then you need to take professional advice - but if you also just want to talk to a few people who've been in your situation before then find someone here who's willing to share (their experience that is!).
Find out how you can make a difference by talking to people who do. There are many ways to get engaged in community life and to help give something back. If you're here you're already doing it. Find others here who can support and inspire you.
If you're concerned about how to deal with a situation involving your rights and the law then there's likely someone here who has had a similar experience and who is happy to share their perspective. We'd recommend you also seek formal or professional advice.
I became pregnant in 2015 with my ex partner he decided he wanted nothing to do with either of us and I did my pregnancy alone. Throughout the pregnancy my hormones peaked and I was thankful of my job to keep me sane if thats the correct word.
I fou...
I was in denial about my mental health from the birth of my first daughter. I work with people with mental health problems, some of them have depression... Surely I would of recognized it? I would of spotted it? But it took my husband to tell me I w...
"So last time I was mentoring was many moons ago as a student, I am now hoping to get back to online mentoring but with many more experiences and areas of knowledge that I can help and advise on! Experience and areas of knowledge still include studen..."
"It all begins and ends in your mind.
What you give power to, has power over you,
If you allow it...."
If you've lived, you've learned...and you've probably got a story to tell. Mentoring online is the perfect way to share your hard earned-wisdom with those who can benefit from your experiences and knowledge, all in a supportive, safe and secure online environment. It takes seconds to sign up and you never know who you might meet!
If you've tried using search and browsed the profiles on our site but can't find anyone who's quite right for you, send a request for a mentor to the whole community. You'll get some good responses and one or two may turn into mentoring relationships.


text:
We want to make sure that you are aware of the suspected nuisance and scam calls in your area. We keep track of how users in our community phone book are identifying numbers to make sure that you have access to the most up-to-date information possible.
Most Frequent Types of Spam and Scam Calls
Real - Time Community Activity
Our Hall of Shame highlights the numbers of the worst spammers and scammers in Phelan, CA. Our community of users does a great job warning about the various scams out there. The numbers below the worst. They are the spam and scam numbers with the lowest Trust Factor ratings and the most negative feedback in Phelan, CA.
Claims to be from IRS or "Dept of Legal Affairs" - is most certainly NOT! They'll try to pump you for money regarding a past unpaid tax bill or a warrant out for your arrest, but you can't settle this stuff over the phone with a credit card payment, so it's a total scam. Would like to know who exactly to report this activity to. One website claims this number is being spoofed by someone from Pakistan/India or somewhere.
There are a couple of steps that you can take to prevent yourself from being a victim of a phone scam.
If you've been contacted by a potential scammer, be sure to file a complaint with the appropriate authorities.
Learn about CDMA cell phones, how they work, how CDMA is different from GSM, and how the technology is evolving.CallerSmart
Learn how to copy and paste numbers on your iPhone in order to run a reverse phone lookup to see who is calling.CallerSmart
Learn about GSM cell phones, how they work, how GSM is different from CDMA, and how the technology is evolving.CallerSmart
Facts about local number portability (LNP) and wireless local number portability (WLNP).CallerSmart
Helpful resources for senior citizens and their caregivers.CallerSmart
Helpful resources and tips on how to start a conversation with your teen about the dangers of sexting.CallerSmart


text:
SanFranPreps.com Boys Basketball Top 10: Uni still on top, Mission moves up
Every Monday, we will be compiling a poll of local media members to rank the top 10 boys and girls basketball teams in San Francisco. Feel free to make your own rankings and discuss ours in the comment section. Voters include SanFranPreps.com staff, Mitch Stephens from SFGate.com and Maxpreps.com and Dylan Kruse from the San Francisco Examiner.
1. University (25-5, last week's ranking: 1)
The Red Devils hold on to the top spot after decisive wins over Fremont Christian (14-12) and BCL West rival Marin Academy (19-11) in the first two rounds of the CIF-North Coast Section playoffs.
2. Sacred Heart Cathedral (21-6, last week's ranking: 2)
The Irish stay put after handling Jefferson (17-12), their only opponent last week, in the CCS quarterfinals on Saturday.
3. St. Ignatius (17-9, last week's ranking: 3)
The Wildcats won last week against No. 6 Riordan, but it didn't look so great heading into the fourth quarter when the Crusaders held a five-point lead. Up next is Burlingame, which St. Ignatius edged earlier in the season.
4. Mission (22-9, last week's ranking: 5)
The Bears jump ahead of No. 5 Washington after clinching the AAA's Lang Division by beating the Eagles to start the week, then easily dispatched Galileo (8-19) in the first round of the AAA playoffs.
5. Washington (23-9, last week's ranking: 4)
The Eagles drop a spot after a loss to No. 4 Mission early in the week, then rebounded with a win over Burton (9-17) in the first round of the AAA playoffs. If the Eagles can beat Lowell and Mission takes care of business against Wallenberg, we'll get a third installment of the Mission-Washington series in the AAA final.
6. Riordan (9-18, last week's ranking: 7)
The Crusaders hop up a spot after opening the CCS playoffs with a dominating win over Seaside (20-9) then a game performance in a loss to No. 3 St. Ignatius.
7. Lowell (21-9, last week's ranking: 10)
The Cardinals lock-down defense held a potent Marshall offense down in the first round of the AAA playoffs, but a tougher test is just around the corner, when they face rival and No. 5 Washington in the AAA semifinals on Wednesday.
8. Lincoln (20-13, last week's ranking: 6)
Their loss to Wallenberg (14-12) in the first round of the AAA playoffs was a tough way to go for the Mustangs in an emotionally trying season. Prior to the loss, the Mustangs wrapped up their regular season with a win over Marshall (13-16).
9. Stuart Hall (16-13, last week's ranking: 8)
The Knights opened the NCS playoffs with a double-digit win over Bentley (15-12), but could not get past a tough Head-Royce (21-6) team in the next round.
10. Waldorf (16-8, last week's ranking: NR)
The Wolverines couldn't crack the Top 10 after beating Bay in the BCL Central championship game two Saturdays ago, but they make their first appearance this week after cruising to two wins in the NCS Division VI tournament, over Contra Costa Christian (9-12) and Pleasant Hill Adventist (18-3).
Also receiving votes: Wallenberg (14-12), Marshall (13-16) and Jewish Community (16-8).
23 Comments
Waldorf? I mean really? Sounds like an elf from Harry potter
Someone on this staff must have attended Riordan. I mean seriously. They have yet to even break into double digits in the win column. And after defeating an unknown team they jump up a spot? Lowell and Lincoln are much better than Riordan. Riordan, AGAIN, lost to SI. So, to that wonderful staff member who keeps adding Riordan on the Top 10 list…..PLEASE STOP!!!!!
Nice action photo.
SHC should be #1, they are 15 pts better than university. Riordan shouldn't be in the top 50. SI is playing well and will be interesting when they play Burlingame wednesday for the ccs semi's. SHC's Josh Fox changes the game for the other team cause of his defense and block shots, he hit 3 3's last game and is really playing well with Taylor Johns…Irish will be tough to beat in the CCS…good luck to all kids…
Riordan would beat Lowell by 20 pts
'Tone'?? Is this Taylor Johns from SHC?? Ohio State?? I think he'll need to dramatically improve his senior year in order to compete at that level.
Johns needs a lot of weight room time to succeed at the next level. The talent is there, he just needs to muscle-up.
are you kidding waldorf?
they are winning because they are playing in D6 with really weak teams
@gc: riordan beat mission by 10, lost to university by 5 and played competitively against SI and shc and Burlingame. As I said in previous posts, this years sf top 10 wouldn't even make the rankings back in the 80s 90s and early 2000. Talent is way down. I'd take the crusaders against anyone in the city.
Why isnt Wallenberg in the top 10? They're one of 4 AAA teams left, and beat Lincoln and Stuart Hall this year. They need to be like # 9 or something
'Tone is not Taylor Johns. It is Antonio Aguilar from SI. And it's a joke, he's not committed to Ohio State. He is a crowd favorite though, and his physicality has shown itself to be very effective this season (ie. the Bruce vs. Taylor Johns of SHC)
release the MASSIVE BEAST
Tone's a beast and should get way more playing time. He is way better than their other center. That family must be dontaing major money to SI or something, because Tone deserves the starts.
Name, money ,influence is the name of the game in SI! Aguilar is obvious;y better than Colllins but for some
"unknown reasons" is not given major minutes in critical games!!
how/who are these rankings made? i mean even though waldorf has only played 3 D6 teams (smashing them) and has a better record than Wallenburg, how can two wins over a D6 team put you into the top 10?
@Jordan 24…I see your point, but obviously Riordan couldn't beat SI or SH. They had their chance and lost. They even lost to University. Sure, they beat Mission, but that was the FIRST game of the season, so that does not say much. They beat up on Valley Christian (San Jose) and that's not saying much. They went 2-12 in the WCAL, but yet that pathetic record warranted a top 10 spot? There's something wrong.
@JJ…You must be talking about in baseball because they won't have a chance against Lowell!
@GC001 Lowell would beat Riordan in baseball, but not basketball. The AAA always lose in the 1st round in the CIF Playoffs. They usually end up playing a team like McClymonds in the 1st round, then end up losing by 25 pts. Lowell wouldn't be able to deal with Riordan's height and speed.
And yea, SI always starts the players who's parents donate the most money, that's true. I'm an alum from SI, and they've been doing that for decades. And I don't think "Tone" is that much better than Matt Collins. Matt Collins is a bruiser and plays excellent "D". Does all the dirty work……while "Tone" is a 1-dimensional player who only does well with his back to the basket. When "Tone" is on the floor, there's too many egos out on the court at the same time, as there is only 1 ball.
lol@ Taylor Johns going to Ohio State, more like San Jose State or Long Beach State
@JJ- I agree that Mat Collins plays good D. However, calling Tone 1-Dimensional shows you just haven't made it out to very many games. In the CCS game against Riordan alone, he blocked and altered shots, knocked down a deep jumper, and passed well out of the post. Not to mention the fact that when he wanted to get a rebound, he got a rebound. No Riordan player could compete with him in the post. And the most remarkable thing is he did this without getting a lot of playing time. And egos, c'mon criticize the pros like that but leave the high school kids alone. The players know to leave the egos for the next level
@Roll Cats.
Tone just got handed by Burlingame's big man #34 Rodrigo. But the ref should've at least called a couple "T's" on the guy. And you can still have egos in the high school level. At least next year, Johnny Mrlik won't be back next year, so Domingo and "Tone" will get their fair share of shots. That game tonight by SI was horrible; they couldn't hit anything in the 1st half, while Burlingame pretty much out-hustled SI the whole game.
Leave a Comment
Comments that advocate violence, racism, or libel, as well as comments featuring profanity will not be permitted. Repeat offenders will have their commenting privileges suspended. All comments must abide by our Commenting Code of Conduct.


text:
- Worldwide Rank #130,753,404
- Follower/Following Ratio 0.5
- Daily New Followers 0
さりぃー Twitter Stats
@000sarry000 - Tracking さりぃー Twitter profile since April 26, 2014
さりぃー Tweets
@000sarry000 has posted 0 tweets in the last 6 days, which translates to an average of 0.0 tweets per day.
さりぃー Twitter Followers
@000sarry000 has 1 followers on Twitter.
This account is #130,753,404 in the worldwide rank of the most popular Twitter users.
さりぃー Following on Twitter
@000sarry000 is following 2 Twitter accounts.
Last month this account followed no users.
さりぃー Predictions & Milestones
@000sarry000 will hit 1 followers in the next 3 months, and 1 in one year.
You are on さりぃー's Twitter stats page
We track these Twitter stats since April 26, 2014 . You can see how many followers さりぃー lost or gained and what the prediction is for tomorrow or the next 15 days, together with all kinds of other stats like rank compared to all Twitter users, tweets etc.
Why don't you give it a try and compare さりぃー to yourself ? Or if you are さりぃー get even more feature rich & up-to-date stats with our premium Twitter Stats.
Twitter Counter is the #1 Twitter stats site powered by Twitter. It all started in June 12, 2008 and we grew rather rapidly because of our Twitter Counter badge. The button is a nice small image that shows your visitors how many followers you have on Twitter. Within a year the button was on many many blogs around the world and we displayed more than 100 million buttons in one month. We track follower stats for over 180 million users now.