text:
Gods of Egypt (2016) 720p BRRip x264-ETRG
Gods of Egypt (2016) 720p BRRip x264 AAC-ETRG
File Size: 952.51 MiB
Duration.: 02:07:02
Bitrate..: 1048 kb/s
Audio....: aac, 48000 Hz, stereo
Video....: 1280x536, 23.98 fps�
Genre: Action | Adventure | Fantasy
Provider: Lori.Yagami
Set, the merciless god of darkness, has taken over the throne of Egypt and plunged the once peaceful and prosperous empire into chaos and conflict.
Buy Premium Account & Support me to post more stuff for you.


text:
Please sign me up to receive personalized deals in Sydney, shopping and travel.
By Signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
Already have an account?
Sign In
Night of standup comedy featuring shows that aim to reflect high quality acts and a mix of comedic styles; choose showcase or headline night
Harold Park Hotel
From $44 for a Fright Night Ticket, Including All-You-Can-Eat Buffet Dinner, Full Show, and Dance Party (From $49 Value)
Get ready for frightfully good fun, with Fright Night; eat to your heart's content, laugh until you cry, and then boogie the night away
View Deal

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Agent Nateur
Agent Nateur
Traces of raw organic honey, lavender, and eucalyptus inflect the subtly sexy scent of this long lasting "holi" formula made with foodgrade ingredients—organic coconut oil, beeswax, sodium bicarbonate, avocado butter, sunflower butter, castor oil, honey, and healing essential oils—to work on even the most sensitive skin.
Organic coconut oil, sodium bicarbonate, beeswax, sunflower butter, avocado butter, castor oil, raw organic honey, lavender essential oil, hydrogen peroxide, eucalyptus oil
Return Policy
Returns are accepted on this product within 30 days of the delivery date. Item must be returned unused, with tags, in its original packaging, along with a completed return form.
View complete return details »
View complete return details »
Shop all:Agent Nateur


text:
Before school morning care - Nutley, NJ
Posted by Christina M. on 9/28/2016
Start date: Flexible
- 214 miles away (Nutley, NJ)
- $10.00 per hour
- 1 child (Elementary)
Stay with child from 5:45 am until 7:30 am drop off at school ( school is 3blocks away). Also if possible, full day care when school is out (occasionally )
Want to apply to this job?
Sign up and Apply Already a Member? Log in


text:
Makhraj application is a guide to help the pronunciation of the letter hijaiyah / Arabic alphabet.
Application makhraj letter is the first step in reading the Quran.
On the application makhraj also inqluded Iqro 1 - 6 as a training tool.
Matters discussed in this application are:
- Makharijul Letter
- Speech of Makhraj
- Iqra
Hopefully this makhrojul application can be beneficial.
This application can be used for kids,
Learning Quran for kids with makhraj is a guide and media for learning quran.


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.
New Jersey Supreme Court
Decided: January 31, 1944.
GLADYS HEDGEPETH, RELATOR,v.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF TRENTON, RESPONDENT; BERLINE WILLIAMS, RELATOR, V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF TRENTON, RESPONDENT
On rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue.
For the relators, Robert Queen.
For the respondent, Henry M. Hartmann.
Before Justice Porter.
[131 NJL Page 153]
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PORTER, J. The relators are of the colored race. They reside in Trenton. Their children are pupils in the Trenton
[131 NJL Page 154]
public schools. At the end of the school year of 1943 both children were graduated from the elementary school in their school district and were promoted to the junior high school grade. The policy of the respondent is and has been for a number of years to send all children of the colored race irrespective of the place of residence in the city to a central junior high school to which only colored children are admitted. It is called the Lincoln School. The white children are sent to other schools within the district of their residence. It is only in this one school in the city where the colored children are segregated from the other children. Were they not colored, the school to which the relators' children would be assigned is nearer to their homes than is the Lincoln School. All junior high schools of the city seem to have equal academic standing.
The sole question presented is the legal right of the respondent to refuse these children admission in the school nearest their residences. The only reason the admission sought is denied them is because of their race. We think it clear that the children are unlawfully discriminated against. It is unlawful for Boards of Education to exclude children from any public school on the ground that they are of the negro race. R.S. 18:14-2; Pierce v. Union District School Trustees, 46 N.J.L. 76; affirmed, 47 Id. 348; Raison v. Board of Education of Berkeley, 103 Id. 547; Patterson v. Board of Education of Trenton, 11 N.J. Mis. R. 179; affirmed, 112 N.J.L. 99.
The writ will be allowed.
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:
You can usually take higher education courses if you're 18 or older. They're regularly taught in universities, colleges and professional institutions such as art schools or agricultural colleges - nearly all of which have their own websites. You can get a wide range of skills, for example, diplomas, bachelor degrees, foundation degrees and post-graduate degrees.
Les cours peuvent varier de beaucoup en longueur. Certains cours à plein temps dure quelques semaines et d'autres quelques années. Certains cours à temps partiel peuvent même durer plus longtemps.
Saudi Arabia, officially known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, is the largest Arab state in Western Asia by land area and the second-largest in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia is served by the national airline Saudi Arabian Airlines, often referred to by its Arabic name Saudia.
Start Today Best Course Studies in Saudi Arabia 2017
Most professional qualifications have frequent update programmes. MDCI now provides you with the opportunity to keep your MBA [+]
Arabista is a leading company in the field of education and entrepreneurship which has several projects in addition to its expertise in processing computer labs in government and education Computer and Language Programs English for school students, [+]


text:
"take a roundabout tour on the..." Singapore Things to Do Tip by soziah
Singapore Things to Do: 1,995 reviews and 3,531 photos
take a roundabout tour on the MRT (singapore's own subway system.
it'll showcase singapore actual local scenes. The City Island. How singaporeans live, where they shopp (loads of building with a tale to tell) but do try to hitch up with a local who can take you on a guide.
othercontact: The subway has a tourist card th
1 - 0 of 0
More Reviews (5)
soziah's Related Pages
"Life is not a quest - it`s an Adventure !!!"
- Member Rank:
- 4 3 9 5 5
- 12 Reviews
- 2 Photos
- Add Friend
- Follow
- Send Message
Have you been to Singapore?Share Your Travels


text:
....are you a beginner and want learn how to play guitar? you are quite right here, come and get individual lessons from a professional player...
Refunds are not offered for this Meetup.
Meetup members, Log in
By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy


text:
Me encantó la vista desde nuestra habitación; el piso 26 tenía una vista espectacular, y las camas eran muy cómodas, ambos dormimos como un bebé. El personal era muy profesional y contestó a todas las preguntas con facilidad. Todos los servicios eran muy caros. El servicio de habitación tenía una tarifa de $4 de entrega, así como un 18% de tasa de propinas, impuestos incluidos. Además, hay una hermosa vista desde el piso 35, donde el área de la piscina era, pero no hay jacuzzi o bañera de hidromasaje. :( También, aparcamiento por una noche era de $48. No se incluye que se espera que pagues el servicio de aparcacoches.
Lindo y bien mantenido. Buena ubicación.
Habitación, personal, ubicación. Nada.
Fantástica ubicación para explorar los lugares más populares de Seattle (el mercado, Space Needle) La habitación era un poco sucia, especialmente las sábanas. Encontramos bichos en una de las dos camas de la habitación. Qué asco.
Las camas son cómodas El baño tampoco lo limpiaron o repusieron uno de los días. Aparcamiento caro.
La cama y las sábanas era increíble Tener que pagar por internet habitación
Salón cómodo y habitación tranquila El personal era grosero y la gestión inútil. largas esperas para el check-in. En general muy mal servicio
Buena ubicación. Muy cómodas camas y almohadas. Las toallas son baratas y finas como el papel. El A/C es inútil. Todavía cobran 11$ al día por Internet que es ridículamente lento. Quién aún hace eso?
Muy cerca del mercado de Pike Street. Es fácil moverse por el centro a pie! El restaurante era demasiado caro. Mejores opciones a poca distancia a pie. Pagué 15 dólares por un mojito durante el happy hour (que podría añadir, no ofrecen happy hour).
Excelente ubicación Aunque no es único a este hotel, te cobran tarifas por el wifi, lo cual es excesivo. Motel 6 Si se incluyen en el precio de la habitación, así que puedes ir a hoteles más caros.
Las habitaciones eran grandes. También estaban limpias, bien equipadas con ropa de cama, toallas, etc. .
Ubicación en el centro de la ciudad Este no es un hotel de lujo. La piscina es apenas aceptable.
Me encantó la vista! Muy limpia y la cama era muy cómoda me alojaría aquí de nuevo. No tienen nada para beber en la habitación
Excelente ubicación y una vista fantástica. El gimnasio dispone de una preciosa piscina cubierta y un montón de equipo cardiovascular. Los anillos luminosos de las torres hacen un gran faro localizador para explorar la ciudad por la noche. La habitación no tiene armario, nevera, o en el microondas. La cama era grande, pero demasiado suave. La sala de las pesas del gimnasio era más pequeña que nuestra habitación. El equipo es bueno, pero tres personas llenan el lugar. Me hubiera gustado que la ducha funcionaba tan bien como parecía; la temperatura del agua era adecuada, pero la presión no.
Comodidad y facilidad de entrada y salida Mi habitación no estaba limpia. Había marcas por las paredes y el baño necesitaba ser limpiado.
Hemos venido a The Westin Seattle muchas veces en los últimos 10 años. Es el hotel perfecto para alojarse. Las habitaciones están muy bien equipadas, el personal es genial y su ubicación no podría ser mejor. No tenemos ninguna queja. Gracias de nuevo por la "perfecta" estancia.
La ubicación del hotel es excelente. Los trabajadores eran muy serviciales y amables. Era fácil de la entrada y la salida. Me he alojado en otros hoteles Westin antes y éste no está a la altura de mis expectativas. Me sentí apretado en la habitación y todo era caro.
Muchos lugares a poca distancia a pie. El personal del restaurante era super amable y nos dieron postre por ser nuestro aniversario. Beber de los vasos de la habitación. Parecían estar sucios y que el servicio de habitación los limpiaba con una bayeta en el cuarto de baño.
Camas cómodas, buena temperatura en la habitación, muy buen personal No hay acceso a internet wi-fi, el estacionamiento es caro
Ubicación, comodidades, servicio Gran hotel corporativo, normalmente evito. El aparcamiento es una locura y wifi también caro.
Bien por el personal del Westin. ¡Hotel con la mejor relación calidad-precio!
Las camas son muy cómodas, las habitaciones están limpias planeamos volver. El baño era un poco pequeño pero funcionaba
Personal amable, buena ubicación. La sala pequeña era más pequeña de lo esperado; el cuarto de baño y el aseo están separados.
From the time we checked in until we checked out everyone of the staff members that we encountered was friendly and helpful. All of the accommodations at this hotel during our stay was exactly what we would expect from a stay at a Homewood Suites by Hilton. There was nothing that we did not like.
They were very accommodating. We arrived late in the evening and very tired from the drive. As soon as we got to the front desk, they told us that a pipe had burst and that our room was flooded. Before we could even say anything in response, the manager said he had booked us at a different hotel that was closer to where we wanted to be, had comp'ed our room and hotel parking, and gave us a letter to give to the next hotel. The next hotel had a friendly front desk, the rooms were nice and the breakfast was very good. Not just cold cereal but actual pastries and hot food. Would stay there again for sure. I never like staying at a hotel where you have to pay for parking, especially when there's no airport shuttle.
Excellent customer service. Convenient location for public transit and walking around downtown and Capitol Hill. Great deal for kitchenette and workout room. Will stay again, highly recommend.
The front desk staff were amazing! So nice and helpful!
Great proximity to sites of interest. Our ceiling would occasionally leak over the entryway floor.
The front desk staff were extremely helpful at check in and also when we asked for assistance about shopping etc. The breakfast is very good. We appreciated the availability of a free shuttle to places of interest, the valet parking, and the free newspaper. When we arrived it was dark and we drove past as the signage is not that good.
Breakfast is awesome! Linens got stained and the room smells awful paid 50+ for valet.. Ridiculous! No self parking btw
The hotel staff were very friendly, knowledgeable and helpful. The breakfast and dinner feature was a nice option as I was traveling on business. Room was spacious and nicely decorated. The major negative feature of this hotel was the highway right outside the front of the hotel. It was very loud in the room even late at night due to trucks especially. Earplugs were provided; however, the constant hum became irritating after a day or two. Maybe replace the windows in the front hotel rooms to be more noise blocking.
Nice clean room with all the amenities I could need.
I liked how the rooms were bigger than expected. The way I was treated @ the front desk by the clerk, he was short w/ me while talking & kind of rude.
Excellent! Lots of room, comfortable, clean, good complimentary breakfast & dinner. Two Big TV's, in LR and BR; giant bathroom. Good location, everything downtown a short walk away. Quiet, good privacy. I'll stay here again, EVERY time. What's not to like?
El desayuno complementario era genial. Incluso tenían una máquina de hacer gofres belgas. Cama tamaño king, las almohadas eran muy cómodas. En general, una estancia estupenda. El servicio estuvo un poco en la gama superior. Pagué 26 dólares por una noche de aparcamiento. El sofá-cama me pareció incómodo, pero mi hija parecías pensar diferente. La piscina y el jacuzzi estaban bien. Probablemente necesita ser renovado pronto o si no una limpieza en profundidad.
Great location and super friendly staff. We were glad to be here without our kids. My only gripe is that the tv channels are very limited and you have to pay a lot extra for every tiny thing, even internet. In this day and age I think everyone should be giving out free internet!
Location was convenient, restaurant was great, and the fitness center was excellent Only complaint was that the room wasn't soundproof to the hallway. I could hear everything outside the room in the hallway.
It was my girlfriend and I's first trip to Seattle. The hotel was within walking distance of anywhere you'd wanna go. The staff was super helpful and we were able to squeeze everything we wanted to do within the weekend we were in the city. Whether it's shopping, a concert at the paramount, the space needle, the farmers market, or just wanting to explore the city, the Hyatt gives you the opportunity to do all these things without needing any transportation other than you two legs.
Good location to walking downtown and easy to get to from the airport using the light rail. The hotel wanted to charge for wifi, that should be free these days.
Great restaurant with decent prices and happy hour. Clean rooms. Spacious bathrooms. Cozy robes. Very comfy beds. Awesome location in the heart of downtown Seattle and shopping. Would stay again. Walls are paper thin. We heard the couple next door arguing for hours. We had to finally call front desk/security at midnight.
I liked the staff, the ambiance, and the room's modern amenities. The weird bathroom door.
The steam room, spa, cafe, bar, and 24 hour room service with quality food were all great perks. Jaime No complaints.
I found the bed and pillows to be most comfortable. The bathroom and room itself were quite spacious. I found the hotel staff to be friendly and accommodating to my needs. N/A
Lap pool & spa were outstanding. Room service coffee was inconsistent.
Good location in downtown that is walking distance to most downtown sites. Lobby restaurant had great breakfast. Thin walls allowed voices and tv to be heard from neighbors.
View and room was very nice. Great service. Bedding is not very comfortable. Feels like all you have is a sheet on your bed. Super short bath tub.
The room was very nice and modern, bed was comfy, and the workout facilities were excellent! Nice to have a Starbucks, deli, and sushi restaurant attached to the hotel. Didn't like that I had to pay for access to the internet. $10/day for low speed, $15/day for high speed. A nice place like this shouldn't nickle-and-dime its customers, especially when even the cheapest Motel 6 usually offers free wi-fi these days.
Fantastic and clean rooms, and amazing staff. Would love to visit again.
Clean, comfortable, and spacious room. Courteous enough staff. Impressive building, with great location. Despite the high price of the room, they nickel and dime you for everything. Parking is not included in the price, even though the Hyatt owns the adajecent parking garage - hotel guests pay the same rates, if not more, than the general public who uses the same garage. Not a single movie channel (hbo, etc), so that you will have to buy their on demand movies for $20. Room service is overpriced and mediocre, with small portions.
The staff was very friendly and helpful. I reserved a king suite and the bathroom and tub were amazing. I also liked the push button shades that allow you to completely darken the room. For breakfast one morning I ordered room service and it arrived on time and was delicious. The pillows were comfortable. Starbucks is located right downstairs! Two of my "clean" towels had a lot of hairs that were not mine. In fact one had a big hair ball folded in it. That was kinda nasty to find after taking a bath. The bed was not very comfortable and made my back hurt. I thought since it was firm that my back would love it but I was wrong.
Should provide free drinking water
Nice quiet room, large very nice bathroom, helpful friendly staff, overall an excellent 4 star hotel. Winter rates are very reasonable, summer not so much...Good food and shopping with in walking distance, all except for breakfast, never did find a "good" breakfast despite paying $45 for two. I'll be back. Parking. Valet $45 / Self $30. Saturday nights self parking is full.
Want a spa on location
Muy bien situado en el centro, cerca de todo. El personal era muy amable y servicial. Las habitaciones están limpias y son cómodas. Mientras que la máquina de hielo solo estaba en la segunda planta, no era realmente un problema.
Ubicación personal amable Las comodidades son anticuadas baños pequeños
Gym was awesome , BEST hotel gym I have ever been to. Super clean and great equipment and organization. I thought it was ridiculous that we had to pay extra for internet in the room, I can't remember the last time I was at a hotel and the internet was covered.
Excellent, friendly service, I would definitely return to this hotel. First given a "17" room, went to the front desk and Lin very kindly moved us to a different room, which was larger and brighter.
Great location for convention center.
Classy. Clean. Kind helpful staff. Great location.
So mess up
I liked the quality of the bedding but we the bed didnt have a top sheet just the duvet and a sheet on the mattress. Pillows were nice and fluffy. No free wifi. You have to pay extra for almost everything even over night parking in the garage. There was construction going on which we didnt hear but they put temorary lables on the elevator buttons that were not very clear. We were not the only ones that had issues.
I liked the location most, very convenient to everything. Room was nice, love water in lobby too The cost of parking, no free wifi, bathroom was incredibly tiny.
The room was clean and had a great location to downtown.
Very central to all points of downtown. Clean and modern with a friendly staff.
PROS: - The staff were helpful for providing directions to getting to parking and room. - Location was convenient for our activities (near Westlake Center). - Bar was good and convenient with good happy hour. - Inviting lobby to hang out in with couches, chairs, tables, and fire place. - Modern finishes in the hotel. - Did not visit pool/exercise room so no comment. - Impressed overall with hotel. - Bottom Line: We would stay here again CONS: - The room we had looked right out to another building (not a huge deal though). - No other cons that I can think of.
Great staff, big room, fantastic location, new everything, slept like a baby. Treated extremely well. Highly recommended!
Very clean, very new, breakfast was nice, held my bags for me. Service was very pleasant Not in their control at the moment; a club nearby was pumping bass until 3am. Nearby construction makes it slightly harder to navigate.


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.
November 20, 1991
Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia; (Hon. Susan Holmes Winfield, Trial Judge)
Before Steadman, Schwelb, and Wagner, Associate Judges.
Wagner, Associate Judge: Appellant, now a fifteen year old, was adjudicated to be a child in need of supervision (CINS) for habitual truancy from school under D.C. Code § 16-2301 (8)(A)(i) (1989). A Disposition order was entered by the court on June 6, 1989 under the terms of which the child was committed restrictively for an indeterminate period not to exceed two years to the Department of Human Services of the District of Columbia (DHS). *fn1 The Disposition order also provided for the child's immediate placement at the Hoffman Home, a residential facility in Pennsylvania. After placement at the Hoffman Home, W.L. returned to court for an intermediate review on March 16, 1990. W.L. absconded from custody after the court proceeding, and an Order for Custody was issued on March 21, 1990 for the child's return. *fn2 W.L. was not located for two months, and upon his return to custody, the trial court entered an order for W.L. to be kept temporarily at the Receiving Home for Children (Receiving Home) and to be segregated from adjudicated delinquents because of his status as a CINS. The trial Judge denied W.L.'s motion for reconsideration, and on June 14, 1990, returned the child to the Receiving Home (with a similar segregation order) pending completion of psychiatric, psychological, and physical examinations, and an educational assessment and location of another residential facility which would accept him. On appeal, appellant argues that the order for W.L.'s placement at the Receiving Home violates D.C. Code § 16-2320 (d) (1989) which prohibits placement of children adjudicated in need of supervision in a facility for delinquents. Finding no error on this record, we affirm.
At the hearing on W.L.'s motion for reconsideration of placement, government counsel and Neil Hoffman an employee of the Receiving Home, represented that the Receiving Home is a facility for detained youth awaiting trial. However, Hoffman reported that adjudicated delinquent children are placed at the Receiving Home pursuant to orders of the Superior Court and that fifteen such children (or half of the population) were at the facility as of the date of the hearing. Only two other CINS children were at the Receiving Home during W.L.'s stay, and W.L. was allowed recreation periods with them. W.L. was given a private room, although he was on a unit where some committed delinquents were housed. Hoffman represented that children are placed on various units according to gender and size and that all children at the facility attend the same school and participate in therapy or counseling together.
Having determined that there was no alternative secure placement to assure that W.L. would remain available for the assessments necessary to facilitate an appropriate placement, *fn3 the trial court ordered that respondent be held at the Receiving Home and segregated from delinquent youths. *fn4 Upon entering the challenged order, the trial Judge emphasized repeatedly the requirement that W.L. not be commingled with delinquent children and that the re quirement of separation be observed for all activities, including school.
By the time of the argument on appeal, the trial court had ordered W.L. to be placed in a group home. W.L. was no longer being detained under the order appealed from. *fn5 Therefore, we determine first whether this development moots the issue raised on appeal. We hold that it does not, as the issue is one "capable of repetition, yet evading review." See Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S. Ct. 279, 283, 55 L. Ed. 310 (1911). The Supreme Court has confined this exception to the mootness doctrine, absent a class action, to situations where: "(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again." Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 348, 46 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1975) (citing Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 95 S. Ct. 553, 42 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1975)).
This court has declined to adhere strictly to the requirements set forth in Weinstein. See Lynch v. United States, 557 A.2d 580, 582 (D.C. 1989). The quasi-class action nature of a case, while a factor to be considered in a mootness challenge, is not a necessary condition to deciding an issue. Id. at 582-83. In Lynch, this court reaffirmed an earlier decision in which we declined to hold moot a challenge to a pretrial detention statute, although appellant entered pleas of guilty and was no longer held under the statute. United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321, 1324 n.2 (D.C. 1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022, 72 L. Ed. 2d 141 , 102 S. Ct. 1721 (1982). The facts presented here are somewhat analogous to those presented in Edwards. In Edwards, appellant challenged his detention under a pretrial detention statute (D.C. Code § 23-1322 (1973)). We concluded that the limited time for pretrial detention brought the case within the mootness exception. Edwards, supra. The same rationale persuades us that the issue raised here on appeal is appropriate for review.
The District argued in its brief that W.L. could not reasonably be expected to be again in a status which would preclude his placement with adjudicated delinquents because the government planned to file a new CINS petition when W.L. returned to custody. Thus, appellee reasoned, any future order for W.L.'s detention at the Receiving Home would be within the purview of either D.C. Code § 16-2313 (b)(3) (which specifically authorizes the detention of CINS children in a facility for delinquents provided they are not commingled) or D.C. Code § 16-2320 (d) (which authorizes such a placement for children who previously have been found to be in need of supervision). Indeed, this court was notified after argument that W.L. has since been adjudicated delinquent. Thus, as to W.L., any prohibition of his future detention with other delinquents has been eliminated. However, the limited time that a child remains in the Receiving Home while awaiting placement in a foster home or an institution prevents full litigation of the issue before cessation of the challenged action. The presence of this factor warrants Disposition of the issue on the merits. See In re Morris, 482 A.2d 369, 372 (D.C. 1984) (the question whether emergency hospitalization was lawful was not rendered moot by change in patient's status to voluntary and subsequent discharge). Therefore, we hold that appellant's case is not moot.
The trial court's order was premised on the Conclusion that the controlling statute authorizes placement of a CINS child at the Receiving Home provided the child is not commingled with adjudicated delinquents. Appellant argues that although D.C. Code § 16-2313 (b)(3) so provides, a separate statutory provision precludes placement of CINS children in such facilities unless there is a second CINS adjudication. The section of the Code appellant relies upon reads as follows:
No child found in need of supervision, unless also found delinquent, shall be committed to or placed in an institution or facility for delinquent children; except that if such child has previously been found in need of supervision and the Division, after hearing, so finds, the Division may specify that such child be committed to or placed in an institution ore facility for delinquent children.
D.C. Code § 16-2320 (d) (1989).
A statute must be interpreted consistent with its plain meaning when its language is clear. Peoples Drug Stores v. District of Columbia, 470 A.2d 751, 753 (D.C. 1983) (en banc). The foregoing statutory provision does not state clearly that a second CINS adjudication is a prerequisite to a CINS child's placement in a facility for delinquents. Where the statutory language is ambiguous or otherwise unclear, we look to the legislative history for guidance in interpreting it. Id. at 754. We find that there is also some ambiguity in the legislative history of this section of the Code.
The history of 16-2320 (d) *fn6 explains the meaning of, and rationale for the provision as follows:
Also, the Senate District Committee has revised the provision in subsection (d) of proposed section 16-2316, District of Columbia Code, so as to implement the precise recommendation of the HEW Guide. Under the bill as reported a child found to be in need of supervision may at the outset be confined along with other such children only. The bill as introduced permitted the court to direct that such a child at the outset be confined with delinquents; but under the revised provision confinement with delinquents can be ordered only when the child's conduct in an institution or otherwise under treatment with others in his category in fact proves to be unsatisfactory. The reasoning approved by the committee in this regard is that, if confinement as a delinquent is appropriate at the outset, then a delinquency petition should be brought.
S. Rep. No. 620, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 7 (1969). This explanation seems to suggest that although the original Disposition order cannot provide for the child's placement in a facility for delinquents, such a placement can be ordered if the child's conduct proves unsatisfactory in the facility designated initially. Id. However, the summary for the provision, which appears later in the report, states:
A child found to be in need of supervision cannot be placed in an institution or facility for delinquents unless he is also found delinquent, or unless he is alleged and found to be in need or (sic) supervision a second time and the Division specifically orders his commitment to an institution or facility for delinquent children.
Id. at 24. The interpretation that a second CINS adjudication is required before a child can be placed in a facility for delinquent children is supported by the foregoing section of the legislative history. Also providing support for this interpretation is the statement in the earlier section of the legislative history that § 16-2316 (d) was intended to "implement the precise recommendation of the HEW Guide." Id. at 7. Both the comparable model section in the referenced document and the comment to it specify that only if the child "is again alleged to be in need of supervision and the court, after hearing, so finds" can the child be placed in a facility established for the care of delinquent children. *fn7 In spite of the less than clear language of the statute and conflicting intentions expressed in the legislative history, we are persuaded by the summary of the provision contained in the legislative history, the expressed intention of Congress to implement the HEW Guide and the explanation and model language in the HEW Guide that the D.C. Code § 16-2320 (d) must be read to require a second CINS adjudication before a child previously adjudicated a CINS can be placed at a facility for delinquent children. We so hold.
The above analysis does not lead to the Conclusion that the trial court's order for temporary detention of W.L. at the Receiving Home was reversible error. The record reflects that the Receiving Home is not a facility maintained for adjudicated and committed delinquent youths, although due to judicial orders, half of the population was in that status on the date of W.L.'s hearing. The trial Judge imposed requirement of strict segregation of W.L. from any adjudicated delinquents. The trial court's order complies with the statute in that it placed W.L. in a facility designed, and generally used for detained youth prior to trial and imposed strict conditions for separation of W.L. from any delinquents held at the facility. It is not the court's order, but the District's implementation of it which may be subject to challenge. If the District of Columbia complies with the Order and maintains its CINS children in separate parts of the Receiving Home, then the requirement of the statute and the court's order will be effectuated. If it does not, then enforcement can be sought through civil contempt. D.D. v. M.T., 550 A.2d 37, 44 (D.C. 1988). Civil contempt is the appropriate means to compel compliance by the District with the court's orders aimed at assuring proper treatment and rehabilitation of juveniles. See District of Columbia v. Jerry M., 571 A.2d 178, 192 (D.C. 1990). Therefore, the order of the trial court of June 14, 1990 must be affirmed.
Our Concurring colleague raises an issue which we view as no less important than he, but which we do not find to be squarely presented on the record before us. That issue is whether W.L.'s placement at the Receiving Home was improper because the facility could not provide the care and rehabilitation to which he was entitled. In the notice of appeal, appellant set forth the issue presented this way: "whether a child found to be a person in need of supervision may be held at Receiving Home pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-2320 (d)." The issue framed and argued in appellant's Motion for Summary Reversal, relied upon in lieu of a brief on the merits, is posed similarly. In a reply brief, appellant argues only the mootness issue and that W.L. did not fall within the statutory exception to D.C. Code § 16-2320 (d), which allows a child twice found to be in need of supervision to be placed in a facility for delinquents.
Appellant's Motion for Summary Reversal does include a summary paragraph which refers to the inappropriateness of the placement given W.L.'s rehabilitative needs. *fn8 We do not regard this reference, made without briefing, as providing a basis for this court to decide whether the trial court erred in placing W.L. temporarily at the Receiving Home because of the lack of programs to meet his individual needs. Nor has appellant raised on appeal the trial court's failure to conduct a further inquiry to determine whether the conditions at the facility (other than those involving commingling with adjudicated delinquents) violated the statute. See Fulwood v. Stone, 129 U.S. App. D.C. 314, 319, 394 F.2d 939, 944 (1967).
Initially, appellant summarized the sole argument to the court below as follows:
Mr. Jones: The provision that says that a person in need of supervision shall not be placed or committed to a facility for delinquent children, does apply to W.L. He should not be there!
The Court: Is that your only argument?
Mr. Jones: That is our argument.
It is clear from the record that counsel was referring to D.C. Code § 16-2320 (d). Later in the proceeding, W.L.'s counsel requested to call a witness to establish a record of what programs W.L. would receive at the Receiving Home. Based on representations from Mr. Hoffman, a representative of Social Services at the Receiving Home, the trial Judge concluded that W.L. was given some opportunity to interact with other CINS children, and she declined to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter at that time. The trial Judge pointed out that the issue for purposes of the bearing was not whether W.L. was receiving ideal resources during the temporary placement at the Receiving Home pending location of a proper facility. Rather, the Judge observed:
The issue is where can he be where he is safe so that we can find a placement where he can get the care and rehabilitation that he needs that is the issue.
Appellant did not pursue the issue, and the reason is understandable. The order appealed from was entered on June 12, 1990, and provided for only temporary placement of W.L. at the Receiving Home until his next court hearing on August 13, 1990. The trial court concluded that this temporary placement was necessary to assure W.L.'s continued availability for completion of testing *fn9 and location of a new residential placement which could meet his rehabilitative needs. The trial Judge also expressed concerns for the child's security in the interim. W.L., a thirteen year old, had a history of abscondences from custody, including one during which he was missing for two months. A report prepared by the social worker for the review hearing on June 12, 1990, showed that W.L. had been arrested on May 10, 1990 in Montgomery County, Maryland on allegations that he attempted to sell sixty dollars worth of "crack cocaine" to an undercover police officer. The trial court recognized its obligation to secure for W.L. a placement where he could receive care, education and rehabilitation. The order appealed from and the order for testing entered that same date appear to have been reasonably necessary to accomplish that objective.
The court deferred for consideration at the next hearing, (scheduled in August 1990 prior to commencement of the customary fall school term) questions related to the minor's adjustment and program participation at the Receiving Home. The trial Judge expected that efforts to place the child would be expedited, that he would get some program participation in the meantime, and that the parties could schedule an immediate review if circumstances required it before the next hearing. *fn10
We recognize that a court hearing juvenile proceedings has a responsibility to make an appropriate inquiry where a substantial complaint is made that a committed child is not receiving the care he needs. Even where the child is in an interim placement rather than a permanent one, there may be circumstances (e.g., where there in an immediate need for treatment) which require such an inquiry. Creek v. Stone, 126 U.S. App. D.C. 329, 334, 379 F.2d 106, 111 (1967). However, the circumstances presented to the court below did not trigger such an inquiry, an appellant does not claim otherwise on appeal. For all of the foregoing reasons, we do not reach the issue addressed in the Concurring opinion.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court of June 14, 1990 hereby is
Schwelb, Associate Judge, Concurring in the result: This case concerns an example of shocking deprivation and degradation in the capital of the richest nation on earth. It presents the court with the juridical equivalent of Catch-22. An obviously conscientious and thoughtful trial Judge *fn1 was attempting to do her best for a most unfortunate youngster *fn2 under circumstances in which no acceptable option was available. *fn3 I do not think that what Judge Winfield ordered was consistent with the parens patriae doctrine as those who designed it would have wanted it to work. Unfortunately, however, I have no constructive suggestion as to what the Judge ought to have done or even could have done. Accordingly, I vote to affirm her order.
Although the trial Judge and my colleagues in the majority have focused primarily on the question whether there has been compliance with the statute mandating segregation of juveniles in need of supervision (sometimes knows as PINS or CINS) from adjudicated delinquents, that is not the only issue in the case. Both in the trial court *fn4 and on appeal, *fn5 W.L. contended that his detention at the Receiving Home, which unsurprisingly lasted a total of more than four months, did not provide him with the care and rehabilitation to which he was entitled pursuant to legislation which protects juveniles in this jurisdiction. On this record, he seems to me to have a point.
The District of Columbia is firmly committed to a rehabilitative approach to the problems of errant juveniles. In re L.J., 546 A.2d 429, 437 (D.C. 1988); See Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 554, 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 (1966). "when a child is removed from his own home, the Division [of the Superior Court] will secure for him custody, care and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been provided for him by his parents." Super. Ct. Juv. R. 2. *fn6 This means, among other things, that a detained juvenile is entitled to receive educational instruction comparable to that afforded to children in the community as well an opportunity for reasonable exercise and recreation. In re Savoy, 98 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. 1937, 1940-41 (Super. Ct. D.C. 1970) (Greene, C.J.) (Savoy I). When presented with a substantial complaint regarding the conditions of detention, the trial court has a duty "to make an appropriate inquiry to insure that the statutory criteria, as applied to that juvenile, are being met." Fulwood v. Stone, 129 U.S. App. D.C. 314, 319, 394 F.2d 939, 944 (1967) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The results of the inquiry conducted by the trial Judge in this case were not reassuring. Despite sincere efforts on the part of the officials of the Department of Human Services responsible for the facility, *fn7 it was obviously impossible to provide W.L. with meaningful rehabilitation while he was confined there.
Mr. Neal Hoffman, a representative of the Receiving Home, appeared at a hearing in which the Judge reviewed the conditions of W.L.'s commitment. The hearing took place three weeks after W.L. was placed at the Receiving Home. Mr. Hoffman explained that at the time of the hearing, W.L. was one of a total of four PINS children being held at the facility. Mr. Hoffman stated that the court orders regarding the other three children did not require that they be segregated, "and we have not taken it upon ourselves to separate them because it is important from a treatment standpoint to have the youngsters in the Receiving Home participate in all of the activities that go on." W.L.'s situation, however, was different:
We are segregating W. because W. has an order for segregation. . . . The other ones [ *fn8] are more a part of our total program. It is W. that is, indeed, being segregated.
No further description was provided of the recreation in which W.L. was being allowed to participate.
The record is also somewhat confusing with respect to W.L.'s schooling. Mr. Hoffman remarked that
We can't separate them in school. I did not mention school. He goes to school with everyone.
The Judge interjected that "he is not supposed to," and Mr. Hoffman explained that "an awful lot of our treatment program [consists of] group activities. They are group activities as far as our therapy." After complimenting Mr. Hoffman on his efforts, the Judge ruled that
W. can't go to a classroom with delinquent kids. He cannot go to classroom with anything else other than PINS kids. Now, I'm not asking you to run two schools, as fine a school as you are running now. I'm simply saying that this child, and as an aside now, the other committed PINS kids, cannot be commingled with the delinquent.
She added that "this is a real tough road for you to walk."
Acknowledging that "we can't run two schools," Mr. Hoffman suggested than "in the interests of W., if he is placed at the Receiving Home, we think that he could benefit from the full program that we would have to offer." When the Judge replied that "I don't have any choice," Mr. Hoffman suggested that W.L. be transferred to a PINS facility pending a permanent placement. The Judge declined to accept this suggestion because she apprehended that W.L. would flee and that harm would come to him. See supra, n.1.
The extent of the schooling and recreation available to W.L. at the Receiving Home is not entirely clear from the foregoing Discussion. The Judge later indicated her understanding that "he is getting some ability to go to school [ *fn9] some ability to recreate with some other PINS children." W.L.'s counsel requested that Mr. Hoffman be asked to testify on the record with respect to what W.L.'s program at the Receiving Home was to be, but the Judge responded that there was no reason for receiving such testimony because "W is not being locked in his room somebody shoving a plate of food under his door three times a day."
In any event, Mr. Hoffman was obviously of the opinion that W.L. was not receiving the benefits of the Receiving Home's treatment program. The reasons are obvious. To the extent that the youngster was segregated from other residents, he could not participate in rehabilitative activity. To the extent he was permitted to participate in such activity, there was less than strict compliance with the requirement that he be segregated from adjudicated delinquents. Mr. Hoffman thus found himself between a rock and a hard place in attempting both to segregate W.L. from delinquent children and to provide him with rehabilitative services. As a result of his placement at the Receiving Home, W.L. was not only at a facility which, as Mr. Hoffman explained, was supposed to be a short-term facility for detained youth awaiting trial, but also was not receiving most of such services as were available at that facility.
Although, as I have indicated, the Receiving Home was supposed to be used for juveniles awaiting trial, Mr. Hoffman represented to the court that approximately half of the residents at the time of the review of commitment on June 12, 1990 were committed children, most of them adjudicated delinquents. This surely exacerbated the problems of a facility which had already been the subject of unfavorable judicial commentary in past years. See Creek v. Stone, 126 U.S. App. D.C. 329, 379 F.2d 106 (1967); Savoy I, supra. Two years after his withering expose in Savoy I of conditions at the facility, former Chief Judge Greene, finding that little progress had been made, ordered that the Receiving Home be "closed except that it may continue to be used as a temporary holding facility for [48 hours]." Savoy II, supra, 101 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. at 321. This came to be known as the 48-hour rule, and for many years juveniles were not to be held at the Receiving Home for longer than that in the absence of consent or emergency circumstances. We were advised at argument that the Savoy order is no longer in effect, but it is obvious that widespread use of the Receiving Home as a place of detention for committed delinquents as well as for pretrial detainees creates severe logistical problems and makes it difficult to ensure the full enjoyment by detained juveniles of their right to meaningful rehabilitation.
In any event, W.L.'s assignment to the Receiving Home meant that he could either be segregated from the delinquent population (in which case he would be precluded from participating in much of the rehabilitative activity) or be permitted to participate in such activity (in which case he would not be segregated). *fn10 Moreover, W.L. was not at the Receiving Home for "a couple of weeks," as Judge Winfield had hoped, but another four months. This was hardly a surprise or the Judge was fully aware of the difficulties which would be encountered in securing a suitable placement for W.L. I do not believe that his placement in the Receiving Home, for a period that predictably and actually turned out to be quite substantial, can readily be reconciled with the rehabilitative legislation which was designed to protect the rights of delinquent children and those in need of supervision. W.L.'s need was acute, but he received little if any rehabilitation.
Recitation of the shortcomings of W.L.'s placement at the Receiving Home, however, could do little to improve his circumstances unless a plausible alternative was available. See n.1, (supra) . As the Judge repeated on a number of occasions, she was not aware of such an alternative. Having sat where she sits, I can appreciate her point.
Judge Winfield was attempting to secure for W.L. a second residential placement. He had previously absconded from the first. With his prospects for foster care dim and his record to date alarming, it would not be easy to secure his acceptance at an appropriate institution. The question before the Judge was where W.L. should be during the search for such a placement.
There are no "secure" PINS facilities in the District of Columbia. The only available alternative to detention, either at the Receiving Home or at the Children's Center, would have been a placement in the community, either with a relative or at a non-secure facility. Judge Winfield apprehended that if W.L. were at liberty, he would "run" once again and would not be available for the testing and other measures which are necessary in order to secure a residential placement. Based on W.L.'s record of abscondence, the Judge's apprehension was eminently reasonable. Given the unspeakable experiences to which the boy had been exposed during his chaotic life, release into the underworld of the streets might well have meant death *fn11 or destruction.
Arguably, W.L. may not lawfully be held at the Receiving Home unless his care in that facility substantially conforms to the statutory requirements. Savoy I, supra, 98 Daily Wash. L. Rptr. at 1937, 1944, and authorities there cited. *fn12 "(A) 'receiving home' . . . for juveniles is an institution of confinement in which the child is incarcerated for a greater or lesser time." In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 27, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 , 87 S. Ct. 1428 (1967). W.L.'s liberty was at stake, and the District's authority to restrict that liberty imposed a corresponding obligation to adhers to applicable rehabilitative standards. W.L. had "a legal right to a custody that is not inconsistent with the parens patriae premise of the law." Creek, supra, 126 U.S. App. D.C. at 334, 379 F.2d at 111. *fn13
There must surely, however, be some common sense limitation to the reach of this beguiling but somewhat academic proposition. A murderer cannot win his release from prison by proving that the conditions of his confinement do not meet minimal constitutional standards. Although the analogy is an imperfect one, I conclude that the apparent violation of W.L.'s statutory rights does not mean that the Judge was required to release him from secure custody. Setting W.L. at "liberty" would have exposed him to the probability of even greater harm on those mean streets of our city where crack is king and its purveyors resort to UZI's and other instruments of violence to consign their victims and rivals to a premature and improvident doom. In my opinion, aside from the somewhat academic nature of the present inquiry, *fn14 reversal of the judgment would bring W.L. the kind of "pyrrhic victory," In Re Melton, 565 A.2d 635, 649 (D.C. 1989) (dissenting opinion), rev'd, A.2d , No. 85-1589 (D.C. Oct. 5, 1991) (en banc), which he might well "enjoy" only from the grave. Accordingly, I join my colleagues in voting to affirm.
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:
Memoirs of a Minyan: The Phoenix!
The purpose of the journey is the journey itself.
Chapter 17: The Phoenix
I began 2004 the way I started every year of my career, trying to learn from the past and morph mistakes into lessons. I told myself I would give Minyanville 12 months to turn it into a business, or it would leave a legacy as an expensive hobby that chewed through millions of dollars.
We built a stable of writers, human capital that was very good at what they did but better at who they were. They included such respected professionals as Tony Dwyer, Scott Reamer, Kevin Depew, and John Succo. Each shared their insights and acumen with "Minyans" around the world and didn't do it for the money; they wrote because they believed in our mission of affecting positive change through financial understanding.
In the summer of 2004, we hosted Minyans in the Mountains in Crested Butte, Colo., the first of many gatherings. The intention was to bring our online community to life, put faces to names and create an engaging forum for financial intelligence. Minyans flocked to the mountains, including my best friend and college roommate, Kevin Wassong.
After standing on the periphery since the inception, Kevin wanted to experience Minyanville first hand. He was a steady sounding board as I forged a path into an entirely new industry, serving both as a friend and offering advice on how to position a next generation digital media platform.
If anyone knew that space, it was "Fish." After college, Kevin headed to Hollywood to pursue his creative ambitions before returning to New York. He launched the digital group at J. Walter Thompson in 1998, became CEO and built it into a top-10 interactive services company. Kevin was responsible for a lot of firsts. He brought Sotheby's first auction online and Merrill Lynch into the digital advertising space.
To him, Minyanville was the "big idea" that could connect generations and transcend media platforms. He arrived early to help tend to the last-minute details and prepare gift bags for the guests.
That was Kevin. He never cared about my money or the summer homes; he was never the "bigger, better thing" guy.
As we roasted S'mores at the Saturday night bonfire, I allowed myself a rare moment of satisfaction. After three years of heavy lifting, Minyanville arrived at a place of collective consciousness despite a motivated agenda and dwindling funds; the fledgling community was proof positive that our vision was indeed vibrant.
As we watched the sunset over the mountains and laughter filled the air, I turned to Kevin and shared a smile. That's when I knew he saw it too.
Of Mice and Men
They say if you told an entrepreneur how much work it would take for his or her dream to succeed, they would never start the business in the first place. While I've never regretted Minyanville, the labor of love was a labor indeed and entirely more challenging than I would have ever imagined.
Kevin and I met at an Applebee's near his home in Larchmont following the summer of 2004. There, over beers and burgers, we scribbled the "wagon wheel" business model on the back of the check. The central hub was Minyanville and the "spokes" were ancillary business lines, including advertising, subscriptions, licensing, events, video games, entertainment and merchandising.
When I landed a meeting with Stan Gold -- Roy Disney's business partner -- in California to see if we could get him to invest, I asked Kevin to help put together a presentation. We were told we had 30 minutes of Stan's time. But 3½ hours into the presentation, we continued to pound the table with passion and purpose.
Todd Harrison is the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Minyanville. Prior to his current role, Mr. Harrison was President and head trader at a $400 million dollar New York-based hedge fund. Todd welcomes your comments and/or feedback at email@example.com.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Daily Recap Newsletter
entertainment, education and
smart market commentary.