text:
Turned my boyfriends childhood toolbox that he made into a potter. I added grass seed and LOOK it grows! I'd like it thicker, but this will do. I just need to find an old antique gardening tool. Suh-weet!
Bookshelves - LITERALLY- are finished! Spray adhesive - leaf through the book and get it good and stuck! Spray paint your brackets if you can't find cool/used ones. Once EVERYTHING is dry and your books have been sprayed SEVERAL times - screw the brackets into the book. Paint screws to match :) Screw screw screw into thee wall! Enjoy you literal bookshelves!
Turned my daddy's guitar (RIP father Du) into a picture holder!
This is way better then it sitting all, ho-hum no one plays me, in the corner.
I am so freaking creative sometimes.
(Patting myself on the back since no one is home to do it for me.)
I once was a guilty lad who told her school tales of struggle and strife on social media platforms, but — I grew the eff-bomb up. I realized this, that, the other, blah and blah! Moral of this brief recap? High school is over! It has actually been over for longer then I care to share. Some people find that hard to believe. So, let's capitalize on this marvel that is Facebook and turn life's Facebook sitch-ee-ations and stories into a T.V. re-enactment show: As The Facebook Feeds Roll.
It is those who have yet to see the light that keep Facebook so mildly entertaining. Following people and their lives, reading their posts, their drama — Oh, the drama! That's what really sucks you in.
Exhibit A. Early this morning I came to learn that GIRL#1 is having man troubles. Those close to her know. Her post is moderately obvious as to the situation. The kicker — family and friends! It really helps to bring a Facebook story to life when family and friends comment on a situation.
As her Facebook friend you have access to her thoughts and posts, so you read um'. Your goal is not to dig or become a "nosey neighbor," but you are sucked in by the details as they unfold during every post.
BOYFRIEND apparently has a GIRL #2 on the side. GIRL#1 decides she will take matters into her own hands WITH WORDS! Because nothing says scary like a few f-bomb's and Facebook threats.
Watch out GIRL#2 danger is on the horizon. Someone made a post about you! GASP! It's a good thing you aren't friends with her or you would comment her back so fast!
Forget Civil War re-enactments on the History Channel! We've hit a gold mine here with Facebook's life situations.
Such the good idea. Whose with me?
Popping the lid off the jelly jar, Lou-Lou is brought back to the kitchen.
"We must never make her mad like that again, Mr. Bear."
"Anger is merely a moment in time. Eventually, we will laugh again."
Mr. Bear sits on the counter, holding two peanut butter sandwiches oozing with grape jelly. Hopping off her stool, she places the peanut butter back on the lower shelf, where she could reach it later. Lou-Lou grabs Mr. Bear and rests him under her arm. With bits of breadcrumbs and a spot of jelly on her Easter dress she grabs the two sandwiches and tip-toes up the steps to her room. Stopping at her mother's office door, she makes a fist with her free hand and prepares to knock. Inside, she can hear her mother talking to Richard.
"…Richard will you stop being impossible about this. You and your ex-wife have an extensive collection of baseball memorabilia. I am trying to do what I can, but you need to work with me on this. There is no way she is going to accept the kitchen appliances in place of the broken, signed Albert Bell bat. It is simply not an option."
Lou-Lou relaxes her fist and decides her mother is far too busy. A handmade sign is tapped to her bedroom door reads: "My Rabbit Hole."
She pushes the door open and sits on the edge of her bed resting Mr. Bear next to her in an upright position.
"One peanut butter and jelly sandwich for you."
She holds the second in the small of her hand, "And one for me."
While eating, Lou-Lou sits dangling her feet off the edge of her bed and listens to her mother cater to Richard.
"We have meticulously been working on this case for over a month. As my client, I would like to this case in your favor, but your ex-wife will not budge."
She finishes her sandwich and licks the grape jelly between her fingers. Leaping off the bed Lou-Lou puts on her pink and yellow pajamas then jumps back into bed. She tucks the bear in, along side her, and snuggles under the covers.
"Goodnight Mr. Bear."
"And a good night to you my dearest Lou-Lou."
Lying on her back she stares at the glowing plastic stars stuck to her ceiling and listens to the faint voice of her mother until her eyes close and she is asleep.
Lou-Lou sits Indian-style pouring herself an imaginary cup of tea.
"More tea Mr. Bear?"
She pushes back the sunflower hat as it falls over her eyes, brushing away loose brown curls as they tickle her nose. Her molted chocolate brown bear hovers over his teacup, with his nose just barely missing the water.
Holding out her teapot, she pauses and waits for the stuffed bear to answer.
"Mr. Bear, it is quite rude not to answer someone when they ask you a question."
Like the dead returning to life the bear raises his head. His arms and feet jolt as his fur begins to move.
"Mr. Bear."
Jumping to her feet, Lou-Lou giggles madly and skips circles around the worn bear. As quickly as her excitement begins, a call from upstairs startles the girl and she freezes in her place. From upstairs she hears the office door sliding open on creaky hinges and Lou-Lou's mother screams her name.
"Lou-Lou Bella Fitzgerald!"
Without missing a beat Mr. Bear goes limp, his nose submerging into his imaginary cup of tea. Lou-Lou's mother makes her way down the steps, heels clicking against the wood. Lou-Lou grabs Mr. Bear from his place on the floor, clutching him protectively against her chest. Stopping at the bottom of the staircase her mother looms tall in bright red heels. She looks to her daughter who is rocking on the balls of her bare feet in a white Easter dress. Lou-Lou hides Mr. Bear behind her back.
"What on earth are you doing down here?"
Surrounded by puddles of imaginary tea she answers, "Nothing."
"What did I tell you about young ladies who lie?"
"They grow up to become ugly people."
"Darling, I am on the phone with a very important client and it is getting late. Go into the kitchen and make yourself a sandwich for dinner, then put yourself to bed."
The red heels pound their way up the steps. The office door screeches shut, muffling the conversation behind the office door.
"I am so sorry Richard. Like I was saying, we may be able to negotiate the baseball memorabilia, but because the signed Babe Ruth card was an equal investment I cannot guarantee it."
Her mother's office, the only room that Lou-Lou and her imagination were not permitted to play in. Making her way into the kitchen she pushes her stool against the counter. Lou-Lou looks to Mr. Bear as she rests him on the counter top and remembers the last summer, a day when her mother was working and she was left home alone to care for herself. She and Mr. Bear were busy with their imaginations upstairs when Mr. Bear noticed the office door was left open.
Lou-Lou looks to Mr. Bear, "Mother must have been in a hurry. She never leaves the office door open."
To be continued…
Projects! I love being creative around the house and this weekend was no different.
Step one:
Remove your fan blades and give um' a good scrub-a-dub-dub!
Step two:
Buy an awesome new pack of Crayola Crayons.
Step three:
Pick an amazing four-some and draw!
Step four:
Put the fan blades back on your fan!
Please note: Gene Simmons if you see this cool idea please do not sue me because you didn't profit off my idea. That being said, give me a call and we'll talk!


text:
There are many celebrities that are either vegetarian or vegan, some making the choice for health reasons while others just can't stand to eat animals. Let's check out some famous vegetarians and vegans that never enjoy chowing down on a juicy steak! "Glee" star Lea Michele switches between veganism and vegetarianism. Lea said she kind …
Copyright – Weld AM FM Gossip 2013. If you see this content on any other website, it has been stolen. Please report.
You might also like

subset: commoncrawl


text: In re Z.K.Download as PDF Filed 10/25/11; pub order 11/23/11 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ---- In re Z. K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TEHAMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, C067441 (Super. Ct. No. J11421) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L. K., Defendant and Appellant. In many ways, this case represents a mother"s worst nightmare come horrifyingly to life. Five years after her husband disappeared with their infant son (Z. K.) from Las Vegas, Nevada, the child"s mother (L. K.) -- who had returned to her home state of Ohio but had never stopped looking for her son -- discovered over the Internet that the child was in Tehama County, California, where her husband had been arrested and the child placed in foster care. Mother immediately contacted the Tehama County Department of Social Services (the department) to request custody. Presumably because of mother"s meager financial circumstances (she was on government aid as she 1 pursued a college degree), she could not arrange for an immediate reunion with the minor, but she clearly expressed that she desperately wanted him back. Unfortunately, by the time mother managed to locate Z. K., the dependency proceedings had already progressed to the stage of the hearing to select a permanent plan for the child (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26) -- which in this case was adoption by the current foster mother. Despite this fact, under the law mother had a constitutional right to custody of her child unless and until someone proved by clear and convincing evidence that giving her custody would be detrimental to the minor. But nobody in Tehama County -- not the department, not mother"s court-appointed attorney, and not the court -- recognized or acknowledged this right. Instead of presuming, as the law required, that placement of Z. K. with mother would be to his benefit and trying to determine if there was clear and convincing evidence showing otherwise, the department -- with the complicity of the juvenile court, and with no meaningful opposition from mother"s attorney -- essentially required mother to prove her fitness to be Z. K."s custodial parent through multiple home studies and psychological examinations. When mother failed to meet the department"s expectations, the department sought -- and obtained from the juvenile court -- the termination of mother"s parental rights, without any proof (let 1 Further undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 alone proof by clear and convincing evidence) that she had abandoned, abused, or neglected the child or that a return of the child to her custody would be to the child"s detriment. On mother"s appeal from the juvenile court"s order terminating her parental rights and ordering a permanent plan of adoption for the minor, we agree with mother that by terminating her parental rights without finding it would be detrimental to the minor to be placed in her custody, the juvenile court violated mother"s constitutional right to due process of law, which is rooted in her fundamental interest in the care, companionship, and custody of her child. We also agree there was no evidence to support an implied finding of detriment. In the absence of any evidence of detriment, the juvenile court had a duty -- both constitutional and statutory -- to place the child in mother"s custody. Accordingly, we will reverse and remand with directions to the juvenile court to do so. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Z. K. was born in July 2004 to L. K. and her husband, J. K.2 When the minor was three months old, father and the paternal grandmother forced mother out of the home they were sharing in Las Vegas. When mother returned to visit the minor, she discovered that father and the paternal grandmother had left with Z. K., changed their telephone numbers, and left no 2 Father, J. K., is not a party to this appeal. 3 forwarding address. Mother stayed in Las Vegas, often living in a tent or homeless shelters, and searched for father and the minor for three to six months. Unable to locate her child, mother eventually returned to her home state of Ohio where her mother and extended family reside. Unknown to mother, father had moved to California with the minor. On May 4, 2008, three-year-old Z. K. was taken into protective custody after he was found wandering, unsupervised, near a busy roadway in Red Bluff. The paternal grandmother did not call police to report the child missing until almost three hours later. Father was interviewed by police and arrested for possession of methamphetamine. Z. K. was not placed with the paternal grandmother, as requested by father, because she admitted to having smoked methamphetamine two days earlier. The department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minor alleging father had failed to protect the minor, allowing the child to wander unsupervised near a busy roadway. The petition further alleged that, thereafter, father was arrested for possession of methamphetamine. At the time of his arrest, father had broken pieces of a glass methamphetamine pipe and two knives in a nightstand within easy reach of the minor. Mother"s whereabouts were unknown. Father told the social worker that mother was ""in a mental institution in Farmersville, Ohio,"" and that ""[s]he does not want anything to do with [Z. K.]. She left a couple of months after he was born."" 4 The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petition regarding father but dismissed a section 300, subdivision (g) allegation that mother had left the minor without any provision for support. The department instigated a search for mother but did not locate her.3 Z. K. was declared a dependent child of the court and placed in a foster home. The juvenile court ordered reunification services for father but not for mother, as she had not been located and was possibly institutionalized. (§ 361.5, subds. (b)(1) and (e).) Father failed to reunify with the minor. He was arrested several times during the reunification period on additional drug-related charges. He was also expecting another child with his girlfriend and had stopped visiting Z. K. Mother had still not been located and the department had stopped looking in August 2008. At the 12-month review hearing on June 11, 2009, the juvenile court terminated reunification services as to both parents and set a section 366.26 hearing for September 8, 2009, for selection of a permanent plan for the child. The "Notice Of Hearing On Selection Of A Permanent Plan" prepared by the department advised that the department was recommending termination of parental rights and implementation of a plan of adoption. 3 Although the department filed a declaration of due diligence, which the court accepted, we question whether the department actually conducted a sufficient search for mother. 5 A little more than a week before the September hearing date, the department requested a continuance so that it could serve mother with notice of the section 366.26 hearing by publication in Las Vegas. The court continued the hearing to November 30, 2009, and ordered service by publication. The department did not, however, publish notice in Las Vegas. Instead, having received information that mother was residing in Ohio, a week before the November hearing date the department requested another continuance so that the department could publish notice in Ohio. Accordingly, the juvenile court continued the section 366.26 hearing to February 1, 2010. Meanwhile, mother and the maternal grandmother had continued to search for Z. K., and the maternal grandmother discovered on the Internet a link to a report indicating father had been arrested and the child found wandering the streets. The maternal grandmother called child protective services in Tehama County and left messages. Someone finally returned her calls on December 1, 2009, and put department personnel in contact with mother, who immediately, both by telephone and in writing (on December 2), explained her circumstances and requested custody of Z. K. Among other things, mother informed the department that since her return to Ohio, she had attended college to obtain her associates degree as a medical administrative assistant and was scheduled to graduate in only a few weeks. She also planned on continuing her education to obtain a bachelor"s degree as a 6 medical administrative specialist. She had reliable transportation, sufficient to get to work and appointments. On December 8, 2009, the department filed a supplemental report with the juvenile court and provided the court with a copy of mother"s December 2 letter. At a hearing on December 14, the court appointed legal counsel for mother. Despite the knowledge of mother"s whereabouts, her circumstances, and her request for custody of the minor, on January 27, 2010, the department filed a section 366.26 hearing report in advance of the February 1 hearing recommending termination of the parental rights of both parents and requesting that the permanent plan for the child be adoption by the current foster mother. In the report, the department noted that mother had been in frequent telephone contact with the social worker since December 2, 2009, "wishe[d] to be reunited with her son, . . . and w[ould] do whatever is requested by the Court to achieve that goal." Nowhere in the report did the department address whether returning the child to mother"s custody would be detrimental to the child. At the hearing on February 1, the department submitted another supplemental report that consisted of an e-mail from mother of that same date. In the e-mail, mother pleaded that she "desperately want[ed] to be back in [the child"s] life" and stated that she had recently begun taking parenting classes to help her understand how to raise a disabled child. been diagnosed as mildly mentally retarded.) (Z. K. has Father"s attorney requested that the matter be set for a contested section 366.26 7 hearing. When the court proposed a hearing date in early March, mother"s attorney informed the court that mother was "on a limited income" and needed additional time to make plans to travel to California for the hearing. The hearing was set for March 24. On March 4, 2010, the department requested that the court continue the section 366.26 hearing to June, "as recent changes in the mother"s circumstances need to be addressed." The department noted that mother was "requesting services and placement of the minor, and an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) [home study] will need to be done."4 At a hearing on March 15, the court continued the matter to June 21 for a resetting of the contested hearing to give the department time to file an amended recommendation. On March 23, 2010, mother and the maternal grandmother came to California from Ohio to visit the minor. (Presumably this visit was in conjunction with the March 24 hearing date, which had since been continued.) Mother participated in several 4 As we explain further hereafter, the ICPC is an interstate compact designed "to facilitate the cooperation between states in the placement and monitoring of dependent children." (Tara S. v. Superior Court (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1837; see Fam. Code, § 7900 et seq.) Among other things, the ICPC provides that a dependent child subject to the compact"s provisions "shall not be sent, brought, or caused to be sent or brought into the receiving state until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state shall notify the sending agency, in writing, to the effect that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the child." (Fam. Code, § 7901.) 8 visits over a period of three days, all of which went well. It was concluded that mother had the capacity to develop a maternal relationship with the minor. The department received the ICPC home study report from the Scioto County Children Services Board in Ohio in April 2010. Mother was found to have no criminal history and no child protective services history. She was living in a small second- floor, one-bedroom apartment where she had lived for over two years. The apartment appeared to be clean and adequately furnished. Mother was planning to move to a three-bedroom apartment as soon as her current landlord finished renovations. Until then, she would have Z. K. sleep in the bedroom and she would sleep on the living room couch. She was unemployed at the time, but actively seeking employment. She was receiving $115 in cash assistance and $200 in food assistance monthly and was using the proceeds from student loans to help pay her $429 in monthly expenses. She had a male friend she identified as Lewis Ruth whom she saw several times a week but who did not reside in her apartment. He could provide child care assistance if needed, as could her mother and relatives. The ICPC home study was "denied,"5 however, based on the following concerns: (1) the adequacy of mother"s income; 5 We understand the statement that "[t]he home study is denied" to represent a finding by the children services agency in Ohio that the proposed placement of Z. K. with mother appeared to be contrary to the interests of the child. In this sense, the Ohio agency was essentially denying the request by 9 (2) the possibility that mother was living with Lewis Ruth (based on the presence of fishing poles, hunting hats, and tools in the home and mother"s apparent statement to a caseworker at the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services at an unspecified time that she was living with Ruth); (3) the adequacy of bedding space for Z. K. if Lewis Ruth was, indeed, living in the apartment; and (4) the hazardous condition of the outside wood stairs leading up to the apartment.6 At the hearing on June 21, mother"s counsel stated that before the matter was set for a contested hearing she needed a report from the department, including the home study. The department"s attorney stated she had faxed the study to mother"s counsel in May but nonetheless would prepare a report and attach the study to the report. To allow the department time to accomplish this, the court continued the matter to July 6 for resetting. On June 25, the department filed its "Addendum Report" with the court. In that report, the department noted that mother had been in "at least minimum weekly contact with [the] [s]ocial [w]orker . . . regarding the well-being and care of [Z. K.]" She had also provided the department with "verification of her college degree, and certifications of parenting classes she the California agency to place the child with mother in Ohio pursuant to the ICPC. 6 The evaluator reported that "[t]he construction of the stairs is poor, with wide gaps between the rails," which "appear to be hazardous to everyone, especially small children." 10 ha[d] completed in anticipation of [the minor] being placed in her care." Mother had also "researched the community support systems in her area that m[ight] assist [Z. K.], should he be placed in her care." The department went on to note that the ICPC request had been denied "due in large part to concerns about [mother"]s inadequate monthly income, the possibility another unknown person was residing in the home, and the home had only one bedroom." The social worker had discussed with mother on June 21 "her progress in addressing the issues to be corrected," and mother provided the following information: full-time employment beginning on June 10. She had obtained The maternal grandmother was assisting her financially in obtaining larger housing, and she had located housing with additional bedroom space. Contrary to the concerns raised in the ICPC report, mother maintained that she did not have another adult residing in her home. She also indicated she would request another ICPC study be performed once she moved into her new apartment. The department also reported that, despite father"s consistent portrayal of mother as suffering from severe mental health problems and having an extensive mental health history, including hospitalizations for mental illness,7 the department 7 In fact, in addition the whereabouts of mother adamantly emphasized that have any contact with the even supervised visits in to maintaining he had no knowledge of or any of her relatives, father had mother was completely unsuitable to minor in any event and warned against the event she was located. 11 had found no evidence mother had ever been diagnosed or treated for mental illness. The report concluded that it was the social worker"s opinion that Z. K. be placed with mother if the Ohio agency approved the placement following the ICPC study. (Presumably this was a reference to the second ICPC study mother was going to request, since the first ICPC study had resulted in a denial more than two months earlier.) The department also recommended that family maintenance services should be offered to mother in Ohio. On July 2, the department requested that the July 6 hearing be continued to August so the social worker could prepare another report. The court granted that request and continued the matter to August 16. On July 12, the department requested that mother complete a psychological evaluation. Thereafter, on July 22, the department filed another addendum report. In that report, without any explanation for the change from the report a month earlier, and with no mention of the request for a psychological evaluation, the department once again recommended the termination of the parental rights of both parents and requested that the permanent plan for the child be adoption by the current foster mother. At the hearing on August 16, the court continued the resetting of the section 366.26 hearing to September. On September 10, 2010, the department filed a report that indicated it was once again pursuing placement of Z. K. with 12 mother. The department noted that mother had "addresse[d] the issues of her housing and income that were problems raised by the first [ICPC report]" because she had "moved into a two bedroom apartment, obtained full-time employment . . . , and completed a mental health assessment." The department requested a continuance to November "in order to verify the [second] ICPC outcome, and to provide further information to State Adoptions," which was requesting "a full psychological evaluation" and "mental health history" for mother.8 The department also indicated that it would "be continuing to investigate the validity of [mother]"s claim regarding anyone living in the home" and would "complete a criminal and Child Welfare history background inspection" "[i]f a determination is made that there is someone living in the home." The department concluded that 8 "State Adoptions" refers to the State Adoptions Branch of the State Department of Social Services, which was involved in the proceeding at this point in anticipation that adoption would be the permanent plan selected for Z. K. at the section 366.26 hearing. That agency, however, had no authority to request a psychological examination of mother, and the department had no business backing State Adoption"s request for one, especially in the absence of any evidence of potential psychological issues with mother. From the comments of the department"s attorney at oral argument in this matter, it appears State Adoptions was "heavily invested" in completing the adoption of Z. K. by the foster mother and fought what efforts the department did make to investigate placing the minor in mother"s custody instead. Ultimately, however, the department knuckled under to pressure from State Adoptions and went along with the request for a psychological examination to "preserve the relationship" between the two agencies. This -- like much the department did in this case -- was completely improper. 13 if the second ICPC study approved placement with mother, family maintenance services should be provided to mother "to aid in the transition of [Z. K.] into her care." The juvenile court continued the matter to November 8, 2010, as requested. On September 21, 2010, the department sent a request for a second ICPC study to Ohio. On that same date, the department received a mental health assessment of mother completed by an MFT (marriage and family therapist) intern. After receiving this assessment, the department asked mother to complete a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist. On October 18, 2010, mother reported to the ICPC evaluator in Ohio that Lewis Ruth was living with her in the home and she needed a couple of weeks to get his background check completed. Thereafter, on November 5, 2010, mother reported to the Ohio ICPC evaluator that Ruth still had not completed his background check and, in addition, she had lost her job. She requested additional time before completion of the second ICPC study to find another job, but the evaluator told her the study needed to be completed within three weeks (i.e., within 60 days of the date of the request for the study). At the hearing on November 8, mother"s attorney told the court that mother"s psychological evaluation was not scheduled until November 24. The representative of State Adoptions also informed the court that the second ICPC study had not yet been completed. Accordingly, the matter was continued to December 6. 14 On November 30, because mother had not contacted the evaluator in Ohio following their contact on November 5, the evaluator closed the home study, denying placement of the child with mother. On December 6, the contested section 366.26 hearing was set for January 12, 2011. In advance of that hearing, the department filed another addendum report on December 9. In that report, the department once again returned to recommending the termination of the parental rights of both parents and requesting that the permanent plan for the child be adoption by the current foster mother. The department criticized mother for not following through with the second ICPC study, characterizing her as uncooperative. The department also complained that it had not received the full psychological evaluation it had requested and proclaimed the mental health assessment completed by the MFT intern, "uninformative and useless." At the contested hearing on January 12, mother"s attorney stated that mother was "requesting placement as the nonoffending parent" and asked for a continuance so that mother could find transportation to attend the hearing. The department"s attorney responded that the ICPC study "was denied," and the attorneys for the minor and the foster mother both objected to a continuance. The juvenile court denied the request for a continuance "both for the reasons state[d] by counsel on the record and for the reasons that appear throughout the file which in large part deal with the non-cooperation and the failure to cooperate of the mother, not the least of which 15 is her failure twice in a row to cooperate with the Interstate Compact procedure." Thereafter, mother"s attorney examined the social worker, eliciting testimony that mother"s visit with the minor in March 2010 was "successful" and that mother did not "follow through" on the second ICPC study because "they needed to make a home visit and that was never completed." Finding by clear and convincing evidence that the child would be adopted, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of both parents and selected adoption as the minor"s permanent plan. Mother timely appealed. DISCUSSION Mother contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights when the court terminated her parental rights without finding by clear and convincing evidence that placing Z. K. in her custody would be detrimental to the minor. We agree. We also agree that there is no evidence in the record to support an implied finding of detriment. Accordingly, the termination of mother"s parental rights must be reversed. I Disentitlement Initially, we address the department"s contention that the disentitlement doctrine applies to bar this appeal because mother failed to complete the second ICPC home study and the requested psychological evaluation before the section 366.26 hearing in January 2011. A reviewing court has inherent power to dismiss an appeal when the appealing party has refused to comply with the orders 16 of the trial court. (People v. Puluc-Sique (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 894, 897.) This disentitlement doctrine prevents a party from seeking assistance from the court while that party is in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the court. (MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 272, 277 [appellant challenged attorney"s fees after absconding with the minor children and holding them outside the country].) Appellate disentitlement "is not a jurisdictional doctrine, but a discretionary tool that may be applied when the balance of equitable concerns make it a proper sanction." p. 897.) (Puluc-Sique, at In criminal cases it is often applied when the appellant is a fugitive from justice. (Ibid.) In dependency cases, the doctrine has been applied only in cases of the most egregious conduct by the appellant that frustrates the purpose of dependency law and makes it impossible for the court to protect the child or act in the child"s best interests. (See In re Kamelia S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1224 [father absconded with minor]; Guardianship of Melissa W. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1293 [grandparents denied placement/guardianship thereafter absconded with minor]; Adoption of Jacob C. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 617 [mother abducted child].) The conduct of mother on which the department relies to invoke the disentitlement doctrine here is far from the flagrant disobedience and contempt that would justify the sanction of disentitlement. Even if we were to assume mother"s conduct related to the incompletion of the second ICPC study and the psychological evaluation were in some manner culpable, that 17 conduct would not constitute contempt at all, as neither the ICPC study nor the psychological evaluation was court-ordered. Furthermore, as we discuss hereafter, neither the study nor the evaluation could lawfully be required as a precondition to placing the minor with mother and avoiding the termination of mother"s parental rights. There is simply no basis for us to apply the disentitlement doctrine to the facts in this case, and the department"s assertions to the contrary are completely unjustified. II Due Process And The Termination Of Parental Rights In In re Gladys L. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 845, the court noted that "[p]arents have a fundamental interest in the care, companionship, and custody of their children. (Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 758 [71 L.Ed.2d 599 . . .] (Santosky).) Santosky establishes minimal due process requirements in the context of state dependency proceedings. "Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence." (Id. at pp. 747–748.) "After the State has established parental unfitness at that initial proceeding, the court may assume at the dispositional stage that the interests of the child and the natural parents do diverge." p. 760.) (Id. at "But until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship." 18 (Ibid.) "California"s dependency system comports with Santosky"s requirements because, by the time parental rights are terminated at a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court must have made prior findings that the parent was unfit. (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 . . . .) "The number and quality of the judicial findings that are necessary preconditions to termination convey very powerfully to the fact finder the subjective certainty about parental unfitness and detriment required before the court may even consider ending the relationship between natural parent and child." p. 256.) (Id. at The linchpin to the constitutionality of the section 366.26 hearing is that prior determinations ensure "the evidence of detriment is already so clear and convincing that more cannot be required without prejudice to the interests of the adoptable child, with which the state must align itself." p. 256.)" (5 Cal.4th at (In re Gladys L., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 848.) California"s dependency scheme no longer uses the term ""parental unfitness,"" but instead requires the juvenile court make a finding that awarding custody of a dependent child to a parent would be detrimental to the child. (In re P.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1211, citing In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 224, fn. 3; accord In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 537-538.) Due process requires that a finding of detriment be made by clear and convincing evidence before terminating a parent"s parental rights. pp. 537-539.) (In re Frank R., at ""Clear and convincing evidence requires a high probability, such that the evidence is so clear as to leave no 19 substantial doubt."" (In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1569-1570, quoting In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426.) The department tries to discount both Gladys L. and Frank R., arguing that "both [of those cases] relied on . . . cases that are factually distinguishable and therefore inapposite to this case." Specifically, the department argues that the underlying cases "dealt with the termination of parental rights of presumed fathers from whom the children had been removed, not parents who had never had custody." The department contends that here, because mother"s "whereabouts continued to be unknown until after services for . . . both parents were terminated and a [section] 366.26 hearing was already set," "it was literally impossible for the court to make a specific finding of detriment as to [mother] prior to the [section] 366.26 hearing." The department also argues that the "Welfare [and] Institutions Code does not explicitly require a finding of detriment or unfitness for a noncustodial parent at the [section] 366.26 hearing, except for a parent of an Indian child which does not apply here." The department"s arguments are without merit. The fact that section 366.26 -- a statutory provision -- did not require a finding of detriment here is hardly determinative of whether mother"s constitutional rights were violated by the termination of her parental rights. Furthermore, from a constitutional perspective, it was exactly because mother was not involved in the earlier stages of the proceeding that a specific finding of 20 detriment was needed before her rights were terminated at the section 366.26 hearing. As explained above, the only reason the termination of parental rights at a section 366.26 hearing in a typical dependency proceeding is constitutional is because of the findings that have necessarily been made as to the parent at earlier stages of the proceeding. Here, no such findings were made as to mother because her whereabouts were unknown and she was not a subject of the earlier stages. As the department admits, mother "was not the custodial parent, the child was not removed from her custody and she was not denied placement [at the dispositional hearing]." Thus, to terminate her parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing over her request for custody, a specific finding of detriment, supported by clear and convincing evidence, had to be made. It was not. The department contends that we may imply the necessary finding of detriment "if there is substantial evidence in the record to support it." evidence here. The department contends there is such The department is wrong. First, we dismiss the department"s contention that, somehow, the fact that reunification services were terminated as to mother "was indicative that the court believed there was detriment." As the department is well aware, the juvenile court terminated reunification services as to both parents in June 2009, months before mother"s whereabouts were known and therefore before she had the opportunity to appear in the proceeding. The termination of reunification services to a 21 parent who has not been located provides no support whatsoever for an implied finding of detriment. We find equally absurd the department"s argument that an implied finding of detriment is supported by the fact that mother"s initial visit with the minor was supervised. The department points to no evidence that the court ordered supervision of the visit. Moreover, even if the court had ordered it, the conclusion that the first visit between mother and the five-year-old Z. K., who were separated when the minor was only months old, should be supervised hardly suggests a finding by the court that giving custody to mother after a suitable reunification period would be detrimental to the child. We also reject any implication that a finding of detriment to the minor could be based on mother"s alleged failure to "pass" an ICPC home study under the circumstances here. Contrary to what the juvenile court may have believed, an approved ICPC report was not legally required before placing Z. K. out of state with mother. "The purpose of the ICPC is to facilitate the cooperation between states in the placement and monitoring of dependent children." p. 1837.) (Tara S. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at "The ICPC governs conditions for out-of-state "placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption." (Fam. Code, § 7901, art. 3, subds. (a), (b).)" re John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1573.) By its terms, the ICPC is applicable only "to foster care and possible adoption--neither of which would involve natural parents." 22 (In (Tara S., at p. 1837.) Accordingly, "compliance with the ICPC is not required for placement with an out-of-state parent." (In re John M., at p. 1575; see also Tara S. v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1837-1839; In re Johnny S. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 969, 977-979.) consistently so held. The California courts have (In re C.B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1024, 1032-1033.) While acknowledging the import of these cases, the department argues that pursuant to "a rewrite called the New ICPC Final Draft 2009," which "California has adopted," the ICPC now "requires [an approved home study] when a public agency seeking to retain jurisdiction places a child with an out of state parent." We find nothing, however, to support the department"s assertion that California has adopted what the website the department cites9 calls the "new ICPC." To the extent the department relies on rule 5.616(b) of the California Rules of Court to support its assertion that California has adopted the "new ICPC," we note that that rule has not been amended since 2007 -- two years before the rewrite the department seeks to invoke. Thus, an approved ICPC study was not legally required before placing Z. K. with mother. To the extent the department can be understood to argue that it was entitled to require an approved ICPC study "as a matter of policy" to "verify risk 9 See http://www.aphsa.org/Policy/ICPC_rewrite.htm. 23 assessment and safety of the child, and to engage the State of Ohio in the oversight of [any] placement" with mother, we do not disagree that the department was entitled to use the ICPC home study process (to the extent the Ohio agency agreed to go along) to gather information for the purposes of determining whether placing the minor with mother would be detrimental. The department cannot, however, use Ohio"s denial of placement under the ICPC as a proxy for the constitutionally required finding of detriment supported by clear and convincing evidence. To support the termination of mother"s parental rights, the department must point to specific evidence from which we can reasonably imply a finding by the juvenile court that it would be detrimental to place the minor with mother. The department fails to point to any such evidence. To the extent the department argues that mother "fail[ed] to follow through with [her] responsibilities" to Z. K., we disagree that the evidence of mother"s actions here was sufficient to support a finding of detriment by clear and convincing evidence. The social worker"s testimony at the section 366.26 hearing in January 2011 that "the last time [she] had telephone contact with" mother was "[p]robably October or November of . . . 2010," without more, does not support a finding of detriment. We do not know why there was no contact, and it cannot be reasonably inferred from the lack of contact by itself that the reason for the lack of contact must reflect something about mother that tends to show it would be detrimental to place the child in her custody. Given that the department had the burden of proving 24 detriment, any lack of information here has to be held against the department, not against mother. Likewise, the lack of a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist that the department and State Adoptions had requested does not support a finding of detriment. As the department itself admitted, there was absolutely no evidence mother had any mental illness or disorder that would affect her ability to parent Z. K. The only such suggestion came from father, who claimed mother suffered from severe mental illness, including hospitalizations -– an accusation the department determined there was no evidence to support. Moreover, it must be noted that mother did obtain and provide a psychological assessment by an MFT intern. While the department asserted to the court that that assessment was "uninformative and useless," the department offered no evidence to support this characterization of the document and failed to offer the assessment itself as evidence in the matter. The department"s conclusionary characterization of the assessment is not the sort of clear and convincing evidence necessary to support a finding of detriment necessary to terminate parental rights. As for mother"s alleged "failure to correct two ICPCs in order to obtain custody," that is both factually incorrect and, in any event, insufficient to support a finding of detriment. In the first ICPC study, the only concerns raised were that mother"s apartment was too small (assuming mother was living with a man, which she denied), her income was too low, the outside stairs were dangerous, and there might be a man living 25 with her (which, again, she denied). Contrary to the department"s suggestion, however, mother did "correct" these problems. Indeed, in its addendum report to the court on September 10, 2010, the department specifically indicated that it was once again pursuing placement of Z. K. with mother because mother had "addresse[d] the issues of her housing and income that were problems raised by the first [ICPC report]" because she had "moved into a two bedroom apartment, [and] obtained full-time employment." As for the incomplete second ICPC study, it does not support an implied finding of detriment either. The department asserts that mother "would not allow the state of Ohio to conduct a [second] home study," but the evidence cited does not support that assertion. The Ohio evaluator did not state that mother refused to allow a second home study; rather, she reported that mother wanted to delay the study "to give her a chance to find another job," but the evaluator refused, asserting that the study "had to be completed within 60 days of the day it was received." Thereafter, mother did not call again, and the evaluator closed the study without following up further. These facts hardly support a finding that mother "would not allow" a second home study. Indeed, given that placement was denied following the first study in part because of mother"s income, it is understandable that mother would have been reticent to complete the second study after losing her job but before finding another. Mother had no reason to know that her 26 lack of income could not rightfully be used as a basis for denying her custody (see In re G.S.R. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1212), and every reason to believe that it would. On these facts, mother"s failure to call the Ohio evaluator after the evaluator insisted the study had to be completed by November 30 does not support a finding of detriment to the minor, let alone constitute clear and convincing evidence in support of such a finding. Moreover, it appears from the evaluator"s letter that completion of the study was delayed because mother needed more time to get a background check completed on Lewis Ruth, who now was living with her. But the department fails to explain why it was mother's responsibility to provide such a background check in the first place. "[I]t is the party opposing placement who has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child will be harmed if the noncustodial parent is given custody." (In re Karla C. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1243.) Upon learning that Lewis Ruth was living with mother, it was the department's responsibility to provide evidence that that situation would be detrimental to Z. K. if the minor were placed in mother"s custody; it was not mother"s responsibility to prove the contrary. Thus, mother"s "failure" to provide a background check on Ruth does not support a finding of detriment. Lastly, we reject the department"s assertion that mother"s failure to file a section 388 petition was an implied concession by mother that placement of Z. K. in her custody would be 27 detrimental.10 The juvenile court and the department were well aware, since the time mother first contacted the department, that she was seeking placement of the minor with her as the noncustodial parent, and everyone -- the department and the court included -- proceeded as though the court could place Z. K. with mother at the section 366.26 hearing without regard to whether mother had filed a section 388 petition (a point we will discuss further hereafter). Unlike the father in In re P.A., supra, 155 Cal.App.4th at page 1209, upon which the department relies, mother"s counsel did not appear and indicate that a section 388 petition was the appropriate method by which to obtain the relief sought and then fail to file such a petition. Instead, everyone here proceeded as if a section 388 petition was unnecessary. Thus, we will not construe the failure of mother"s attorney to file one as a concession of detriment. In sum, we conclude that due process requires a finding of detriment to the minor, by clear and convincing evidence, before terminating a parent"s parental rights. Such a finding was not made in this case, nor can one be supported by the evidence in the record. Accordingly, the order terminating mother"s 10 As we discuss further hereafter, subdivision (a) of section 388 provides that "[a]ny parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court." 28 parental rights and ordering a permanent plan of adoption for the minor must be reversed. This does not, however, end our analysis. III Statutory Right To Placement In addition to the due process requirement previously discussed, a proper finding of detriment to the minor is also statutorily required to place a minor with someone other than his noncustodial parent. Section 361.2 establishes the procedures a court must follow for placing a dependent child following removal from the custodial parent pursuant to section 361. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1813, 1820.) (In re Marquis D. When a court orders removal of a minor under section 361, the court first must determine whether there is a parent who wants to assume custody who was not residing with the minor at the time the events that brought the minor within the provisions of section 300 occurred. (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) "If that parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child." (§ 361.2, subd. (a), italics added.) The juvenile court must make the detriment finding by clear and convincing evidence. (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 700.) Subdivision (c) of section 361.2 requires the juvenile court to "make a finding either in writing or on the record of the basis for its determination . . . ." 29 Thus, "a nonoffending parent has a constitutionally protected interest in assuming physical custody, as well as a statutory right to do so, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the parent"s choices will be "detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child."" (In re Isayah C., supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 697.) It is not the nonoffending parent"s burden to show that she is capable of caring for her child. Rather, it is the party opposing placement who has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child will be harmed if the nonoffending parent is given custody. Section 361.2 is designed to apply at the disposition phase of the dependency proceeding, when the court first elects to remove the child from the custody of the custodial parent. It does not -- at least, not in the course of an ordinary dependency case -- apply at the 366.26 hearing. The purpose of "[a] hearing pursuant to section 366.26 [is] to select and implement a permanent plan for the children"; "[t]he court need not continue to consider the issue of reunification at the section 366.26 hearing." 295, 309.) (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th Indeed, at a section 366.26 hearing, "the juvenile court"s dispositional options [ordinarily] do not include return to parental custody." (Marilyn H., at p. 310.) The issue of a return to parental custody can be raised late in the dependency proceeding, however, by means of a section 388 petition to change, modify, or set aside a previous order based on a change 30 in circumstances or new evidence. (See Marilyn H., at pp. 307- 310.) Here, mother was not located and did not begin participating in the dependency case until nearly a year and one-half after the disposition hearing and until after the section 366.26 hearing had already been continued twice. In the absence of a section 388 petition to modify or set aside the disposition order, there was no legal basis for the court to consider placement of the minor with mother at the section 366.26 hearing. Nevertheless, as we have previously noted, everyone -- the department and the court included -- proceeded over the course of the year after mother appeared as if that was an option the court had. It is far too late in the proceeding for anyone to complain about the lack of a section 388 petition seeking placement of the child with mother pursuant to section 361.2, inasmuch as everyone in the case has, since mother appeared nearly two years ago, proceeded as if such a petition was before the court.11 11 Based on this conclusion, we need not address mother"s argument in her reply brief that her attorney"s failure to file a section 388 petition constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We do note, however, that there could be no good tactical reason for failing to file such a petition. We likewise express some consternation at the passivity of mother"s appointed attorney in pursuing mother"s stated goal of obtaining custody of the minor. The record contains no papers filed by mother"s attorney, and while we recognize it was the department"s burden to prove detriment, and not vice versa, there was no wisdom in the virtual silence by mother"s counsel in the face of the very real possibility (which, in fact, became reality) that mother"s parental rights would be terminated. Not 31 In effect, the issue of placement with mother was before the juvenile court by consent of all the parties -- a consent manifested through their failure to argue otherwise or object to the court"s consideration of placement with mother on the basis that no section 388 petition requesting such placement had been filed. Thus, we face the question not only of whether the juvenile court erred in terminating mother"s parental rights (which we have answered already), but also whether the court erred in refusing to place the minor in mother"s custody without a finding of detriment. We find the latter error also. Because the juvenile court did not find that placement of the minor with mother would be detrimental to the minor"s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being and because, as previously discussed, such a finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record, it was error for the court not to place the minor in mother"s custody. only did mother"s counsel fail to provide virtually any input to the court on mother"s behalf, mother"s counsel did not even inform the department and the court that detriment to the minor had to be shown by clear and convincing evidence before her client"s parental rights could be terminated. Given the difficulty inherent in mother protecting her own rights from across the country with limited financial resources, in the event the juvenile court does not terminate its jurisdiction over Z. K. upon placing the minor with mother on remand, the court should consider appointment of a different attorney to represent mother"s interests in the proceeding. Mother is entitled to an advocate who will, with skill, ingenuity, and enthusiasm, in fact, advocate for her interests to the fullest extent of the law, and she did not get that with her first appointed counsel. 32 IV Conclusion In the absence of any evidence that placing the minor in mother"s custody would be detrimental to the minor, mother was entitled to custody of her son, and the juvenile court erred in ordering otherwise. Accordingly, we direct the juvenile court to place the minor in mother"s custody. Subdivision (b) of section 361.2 gives the juvenile court three options when it places a dependent child with a nonoffending, noncustodial parent. Specifically, the court can (1) "[o]rder that the parent become legal and physical custodian of the child" and "terminate its jurisdiction over the child" (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(1)); (2) "[o]rder that the parent assume custody subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and require that a home visit be conducted within three months" (id., subd. (b)(2)); or (3) "[o]rder that the parent assume custody subject to the supervision of the juvenile court" (id., subd. (b)(3)). On remand, the juvenile court here shall be entitled to choose among these options in the exercise of its sound discretion. Under the circumstances of this case, however, where the juvenile court terminated mother"s parental rights without making the requisite finding of detriment and without even understanding that such a finding was necessary -- despite clear case law to the contrary -- we conclude it is in the interests of justice for a different judge to hear the proceeding on remand. Accordingly, on our own motion, we so order. 33 (See Code Civ. Proc., § 170.1, subd. (c).) As previously noted, we also strongly recommend that the court appoint new counsel for mother in the event the court chooses to retain jurisdiction over the minor pursuant to section 361.2, subdivision (b)(2) or (b)(3). DISPOSITION The order terminating parental rights and ordering a permanent plan of adoption for the minor is reversed, and the case is remanded to the juvenile court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. The stay of proceedings previously issued by this court is vacated upon the finality of this opinion. ROBIE We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. HOCH , J. 34 , J. Filed 11/23/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ---In re Z. K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. TEHAMA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, C067441 (Super. Ct. No. J11421) Plaintiff and Respondent, ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION v. L. K., Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT: The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed October 25, 2011, was not certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it appears now that the opinion should be published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered. BY THE COURT: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. ROBIE , J. HOCH , J. 35 EDITORIAL LISTING APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tehama County, Richard Scheuler, Judge. Reversed with directions. Michelle Jarvis; Monica Vogelmann under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. William James Murphy, County Counsel and Sylvia Duran, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 36


text: So I bought this little guy maybe 8 years ago, and I've had it in the box ever since. The box has always been somewhere on my desk (usually behind my TV, holding up heavy cables) and in the past few weeks has been out in the open on my desk, next to my rat's sleeping place. I never really paid it any mind, since it looked like just a collection of animal portraits. It wasn't until last week while I was nursing her injury that I actually took a good look at it and saw this. Seriously cow, what the fuck???


text:
Categories > Celebrities > My Chemical Romance > Riddler
Game plan3 Reviews
Meet Vanessa
From: email@example.com
Subject: hi
First and foremost how do you know about my dad? Only a selected few know about that, has one of them said something about it to you? Is that how you know so much about me? Because if they haven't you must be one of my friends.
However, on all accounts you are correct. There's not one thing I could disagree with you on there.
In answer to your question, one weird fact about me is whenever I eat chocolate I have to have a packet of ready salted crisps as I like the sharpness of the salt cutting through the sweetness of the chocolate. Also, I often sleep with my eyes open which freaks all of my friends.
This weekend the guys are playing a show tonight so I'm going along to support them. Saturday I'm wedding rehearsing as I am a bridesmaid and the bride thinks I'm going to mess up, and Sunday I'm doing my work. I don't even own an Xbox, another seemingly weird fact apparently.
My question to you is: is Anthony Thomas an indication of your name? I.e. Your middle name or have you used Thomas because it's my last name?
Right back at you,
Darcy x
I typed back furiously quick on my phone keyboard and looked round all my friends to find out the culprit but not one of them budged. I didn't even hear a phone vibrate.
"Darce are you alright?" A concerned Gerard was now kneeling at the side of me watching me closely.
"What? Oh yes I'm fine, help me up again?" I asked quietly which he nodded and stood up with me. The whole group waiting for me to explain, which I did in a nutshell. "What time is show time tonight then boys." I said quickly restoring my chirpy manner.
"7 we're booked on for. Are you sure you want to come D? We all understand if you want to stay home and rest. Even though he's still a creep, Riddler is right, it has been stressful months." Mikey spoke holding me arm's length away his hands on the top of my arms.
"What? Are you mad Michael? Of course I'm coming. Paying on the door as well." I told him pushing his arms off me. "Let's get one thing straight okay? It might have been pointed out that I've had a difficult few months, but nothing changes we just get on like we have been doing understand?" I looked at them all waiting for them to nod.
"Okay if that's the case then I want you all to meet my girlfriend tonight, she's called Vanessa. She's going to come to the show tonight, is that alright?" Ray looked at us all one by one as we all smiled and nodded. We'd never met Vanessa despite hearing plenty about her from Ray. The reasons as to why we've only heard about her and not seen her is unbeknown to us all but I'm sure he has valid reasons.
"You ready Charlie?" I spoke down the phone whilst parked up outside her house.
"You're really lazy you know that? You could have just knocked on the door instead of ringing me. Give me a second I'm getting my house keys." She spoke obviously very quickly looking for her keys as her voice began to fade on the phone. Just as she made her 'aha' noise indicating she located the said keys my phone pinged to let me know I had an email. I quickly hung up figuring she wouldn't mind considering she was wittering on with herself.
To: firstname.lastname@example.com
From: firstname.lastname@example.com
Subject: hi
although I shouldn't point this out, you were stood with all your friends when you got the email therefore how could I be one of your friends? As for them telling me about that information, no they haven't. If I'd of asked they would have found it strange and told you anyway so you would know who I am.
The fact you sleep with your eyes open is pretty weird to be fair, but many people like to eat crisps after chocolate, I know of many who do.
In answer to your question, it is a happy coincidence that I have Thomas in my name, however do not be fooled I may have changed it bare that in mind.
Have a good night at your friend's bands gig tonight and with your rehearsal of bridesmaid duty I'm sure you will do fantastic. What is your bridesmaid dress like?
I was wondering, considering we finish for the holidays today, would you like to meet up one day in the week? Say Wednesday? In the park? Near the ice cream hut? Only if you want to that is of course.
My question for you is what do you think is your best feature?
Now I've dated other girls, tried everything in the world to forget your face,
Riddler x
I instantly recognised the lyric reference; it was Olly Murs 'In Case You Didn't Know' causing me to smile as Charlie got in the car.
"Something good I hope?" she looked at me smiling whilst putting her seat belt on.
"Of course, he quoted Olly of course that's good." I laughed as I set off to the club where the guys were playing as she rolled her eyes.
We quickly got into the small queue that had formed outside the music bar.
"I'm so excited for you to meet him." Charlie smiled as we got in the bar and got our drinks. She was on Coke and I was on my usual Sprite and we was stood two rows from the front slap bang in the middle as it started to fill up behind us.
"I'm excited too of course, I'll reply after the gig." I smiled as I text Frank our location so they knew we was defiantly here.
"Do you still have no idea who it could be?" She asked smiling looking behind her to see how full the bar was.
"Nope no idea I thought it was Peter at first but I highly doubt it was, and then I thought stupidly it was Frank but it couldn't have been because as Riddler pointed out he was stood with me when I got the email, so I'm stumped as to who it is." I told her truthfully.
"Frank?" She looked at me a wave of confusion covering her expression, "why Frank?" she sounded as confused as she looked.
"Well I think it's because we're so close that I have feelings for him, I mean it's nothing like what you and Gerard feel for each other." I told her not looking at her as the embarrassment set in. This was the first time I'd ever told anyone this, normally I just kept it in my own thoughts.
"And what you feel for Frank is the same as what you feel for the rest of the guys?" She asked slowly. That was a good question; did I feel the same for Mikey or for Ray or even for Gerard? I pondered this question for a few good minutes until I was quickly brought back to reality and the sound of Headfirst for Halo's suddenly being blared out.
The show went smoothly and with each song you could tell they were more and more confident being on stage performing for the good 50 people that had paid to get in to see them. By the last song Gerard was strutting around the tiny stage like he was playing Wembley, Frank was throwing himself around the stage like there was no tomorrow, Ray was head banging that hard I thought he might get whiplash and even the usually reserved Mikey was moving about on the small square he had been allocated to move in.
"That was amazing!" Gerard screamed as he joined Charlie and I at the bar where we had their usual drinks lined up for them "I love it so much being up there!" He carried on as Ray walked over with an unfamiliar girl attached to his arm.
"Oh I forgot we were meeting his girlfriend." I whispered to Charlie, "what's she called I've forgot?"
"Vanessa," Frank whispered to me as they stood round the group, all of us smiling quickly.
"Guys this is Vanessa, Vanessa this is Gerard." She shook his hand smiling, "his girlfriend Charlie." She shook Charlie's hand smiling, "his brother Mikey." She shook Mikey's hand again with a smile. "Mikey's girlfriend Anna." Anna too received a handshake and a smile. "Frank," Frank got the ritual "and …"
"Don't tell me Frank's girlfriend?" She interrupted him looking at me smiling.
"Actually no just a friend actually." I smiled returning her smile.
"Vanessa this is Darcy." Ray continued, and although she shook my hand the friendly smile was replaced with a sarcastic one.
"Oh Darcy, as in Mr Darcy?" She asked a smirk appearing on her lips.
"Yeah mum is a sucker for Pride and Prejudice." I said frowning a little. What the hell had I done?
"Probably why your so fantasised by them stupid chick flicks Darce." Gerard cut in laughing. I smiled politely as everyone continued chatting leaving me slightly confused about Vanessa.
"I'm just popping out for some air yeah?" I smiled at the group as I stood from our table at the side of the room and walked out into the smoking area. It was about ten minutes until I felt someone stand beside me, looking up I noticed the now familiar red head stood next to me.
"Oh hey, need air too?" I smiled up at her, "it's rather stuff…" I never got chance to finish.
"Listen, Darcy." She turned to face me pushing herself up off the wall to do so, "I know girls like you and your game. Hands off Ray. He's mine, he has been for three months and he will remain mine okay?" She moved closer to me "just because they're all blind to your innocent act doesn't mean I am. You stay away from him or I'll make you and if I find out you've been alone with him I will do everything I can to make sure you end up alone alright?" She was now in my face.
"Alright alright, calm down. I don't know what's give you this impression of me but I'm not who you think I am. Ray is a really great mate and he's happy with you and trust me I'm not into him that way. So don't go round threatening me like you own me. You don't even know me. And whilst you're new into this group and you don't really know people I will not be talked to like I'm a pet. You have no right to tell me who I'm allowed to be around and to threaten me when you met me fifteen minutes ago. If I want to hang around with Ray then I will and maybe if you didn't have self-issues you'd actually trust him." I snapped back walking back to the main area.
"I do trust him its bitches like you who go round in their flimsy outfits flaunting themselves in front of taken guys for a laugh. There's a name for girls like you whores." She stared at me her nostrils flaring slightly. And I don't know why I did but I let out the most throaty laugh ever.
"There's a name for people like you, also a doctor. Maybe you should visit them might help you with your people skills."
"I've seen what you're like with Gerard and he is dating your best friend? Really think I'll let you get away with that with Ray. Not a chance, I'm going to be around a lot more now Darcy and trust me I will not miss a fucking trick you try." She spat smirking.
"Gerard is one of my best friends you crazy women! I'm not the one with a game plan love you are. Stay away from me." I gave her a firm looking before turning and walking straight into the chest of someone.
"What's going on?" Ray looked down at me "why is Vanessa crying?" He walked over to her hugging her to his chest. The rest of the gang looking at me questioningly.
"Oh come on!" I looked at her crying in his chest. What an actress.
"I don't know what I've done but she just started a verbal attack on me Ray. I only said hello." She turned her face into his chest.
"Dee is this true?" Frank asked me and for some strange reason the fact he was asking me stung more than it would anyone else.
"I can't believe your actually asking me." I felt myself well up. No I would not cry in front of any of them. If none of them believed me now then why the hell did I need them? I shook my head to my own mental question before running quickly through the bar grabbing my hoodie and running to my car to drive off home.
To: firstname.lastname@example.com
From: firstname.lastname@example.com
Subject: hi
I'd love to meet you. I've just had an awful night and the fact your willing to talk to me is somewhat comforting. My bridesmaid dress is like a meringue, I look hideous in it. I don't have a best feature, I do kind of like my eyes when they are not puffy from crying like they are now. You're right you're not one of my friends turns out they don't really know me at all. My question for you is what are your plans after college?
Shot down by strangers who glances can cripple,
Darcy x


text:
January/February 2012
On their honor! Read the history of scouting in Bulloch County. Discover curvy fashionista Anslee Connell, whose designs have been showcased during fashion week in NYC! She's a local girl who's making it big in fashion! Our own Dr. John Waters at First Baptist Church is now president of the Georgia Baptist Convention. Check out this and other stories in the January/February 2012 issue now!


text:
Please log in or register to manage your account
Model: 14882 Item: ACM14882
KleenEarth Recycled Scissors with Microban Protection, 8", 2/Pack Feature stainless steel blades sonically welded to plastic handles. These lightweight scissors are capable of cleanly cutting through a wide range of materials. Handles infused with Microban antimicrobial product protection to inhibit the growth of bacterial odors. Cut Length: 3 1/2"; Scissor Length: 8"; Tip Type: Pointed.
Westcott® Stainless Steel Office Ruler With Non Slip Cork Base, 12"
$4.24$297 / each
Westcott® See Through Acrylic Ruler, 18", Clear
$2.88$196 / each
Westcott® Kids Scissors, 5" Blunt, Pack of 12, Assorted
$15.96$1133 / each


text:
Michael Mauer and his design team have been at it again. Saab's latest concept car, sure to please the faithful, is a glass-roofed five-door...um, uh ("Can't call it a hatch at this price point," said one anonymous corporate suit), as Mauer put it, "teaser for the [9-3] wagon."
"No, not 'wagon'; the 'whatever'-the more versatile version of the 9-3," he continued. "This car represents the crossover point between hatchback and wagon."
The well-loved Saab hatchback first made an appearance in 1974 with the introduction of the versatile but awkwardly named three-door 99 Combi Coupe, called the Wagonback in the U.S. So, let's take this opportunity to wish the marketing folks "good luck" as they try and sort out a name for this car. Unlike the iconic 9X and last year's 9-3X, which provided it so many design cues, the Sport-Hatch is nearly ready for production. So close, in fact, that Mauer admitted, "For the concept car, you make some changes that disguise, just a little bit, the production version."
"If you take today's 9-3 and the 9X concept car, you can see the steps in between we'd like to take," added Mauer. "I think we have nice, strong character in the [Sport-Hatch] grille and air intake. In comparison with the current 9-3, we have a little more shape, a little more 3-D feeling and character. What you see on the front of this car are some ideas that might make their way into a 9-3 facelift or model-year change. The tail end is pretty much what you will see in production." When asked about the car's stout look, Mauer replied, "One thing is very clear. A Saab should always look robust and solid."
The exterior of the 9-3 Sport-Hatch continues the now familiar Saab themes of a high, rising waistline and the stretched teardrop shape of the side windows. With the B- and C-pillars hidden under the dark green glazing, the monolithic, tapering shape of the windows and the "hockey-stick" line (across the bottom of the glazing and sharply up and forward at the D-pillar) help create a sense of forward movement while taking the eye away from the less tapered roofline. A lone sheetmetal feature line, starting at the headlight and ending at the top of the rear window, follows and reinforces the "hockey-stick" line, helping to keep a "sporty, dynamic look while maintaining useful volume."
Senior designer Taras Czornyj said, "We wanted the car to assume a very clean and muscular character. It was important to execute this sporty look free from any traditional wagon motifs. We have tried to move the center of gravity forward away from the rear area." A short rear overhang and taillights "bent to mimic the residual 'bustle' or 'notchback' line of a hatchback" also help blur conventional wagon lines. Five flush-mounted fixing points do away with a wagon's traditional fixed roof bars and allow a number of flexible roof-mounted storage solutions.


text:
Where Do You Keep Your Tools?
Living in apartment and not owning a car, we've never used a garage to store our tools. We recently moved into a new space and found a spot for our toolbox, drill, and level on the lower shelf of our entryway bench. Even though it's not the most attractive solution, it's kept our tools accessible while we set up our new apartment. We're guessing Apartment Therapy readers have probably faced the same dilemma: how to stash your tools in a convenient spot that's not too ugly...
We're wondering where those of you that don't have a lot of extra closet space or a spacious garage store your toolbox and drill?
P.S. Apologies for the gym shoes, the bright orange level, and the toolbox covered in band stickers. (It's been my toolbox since I was 16 years old.)
• AT On: Organizing Your Tools for Real
• Small Space Checklist: Toolbox Basics
• What's In Your Toolbox?
27 Comments
I actually really really like this solution! I think your toolbox is great with the band stickers, and your entry looks nice. I keep my tool kit under my kitchen sink. It's one of those 50 piece ones that looks sort of like a hardsided brief case -- I bought it when I moved out on my own. Not nearly as cool as yours. :)
I have no garage, but am lucky enough to have a laundry room. The door to the laundry room is always closed, so I just leave it on the counter next to the detergent.
I bought a vintage steel toolbox made by Craftsman at our local flea market for $5. It's small and looks cool enough to sit under a vintage school chair I have in my living room. Both items add great textural interest, and I don't have to hide the tools anymore!
I am still looking for a good place to store those types of things in our small apartment. I'd love more ideas!
I used to keep them in a drawer in the kitchen, and I still do keep some of them there. While I do not have a garage, I have a cold room (an unfinished room, open to the elements tacked on to the back of my apartment). I now keep a lot of tools in there.
I LIKE your toolbox. :D
Well, I thought my idea was good, but I'm thinking of changing it. I got a small chest of drawers that works perfectly as a side table by the living room sofa. The first two drawers hold all our tools and the bottom one holds extra pots for plants and extra candles. The drawers on this particular chest don't open very easily though (it was a $2 yard sale find), so it always causes grumblings when we're trying to open it.
i keep mine in a small box in my linen closet..and of course they are pink because i do they handiwork around here...not my husband
I have a TON of tools for an apartment dweller...and I still haven't found a solution.
I can't wait to have a garage (the thing I'm looking forward to most about owning a house!).
I have been meaning to buy a pegboard for awhile now but just haven't. That would be a great project for my next day off (good call, christoronto!).
I've worked out a pretty good solution for my space: an underbed rolling storage box
that I keep under the steel restaurant table in the kitchen. Just roll it out when I need it.
I live in a 350" SF studio, so storage is at a premium. I have more tools than I should, but like to try to do my own repairs and they've accumulated.
I keep my tools in two stackable Ikea Vessla containers, which they market in their children's section. They fit perfectly under the tall Parsons table that holds my TV. I have a skirt on the table, so the containers are hidden.
I was gonna pick one up at the Great American Going Out of Business Sale but had to save up for Spreewells to put on my wheelchair. Off to drink a doublewhiskeycokenoice.
our toolbox lives in right inside the door of our "everything" closet. open the door and it's within easy reach.
good thing the closet, which is one of two in our apt., is a decent size; in addition to the toolbox it holds golf clubs, a cooler, all our camping equipment, an easel, shoes, coats, board games, laundry supplies, and more!
i hide my carpenter tool belt with all the tools in back of my car trunk to leave my petite studio all pretty and clean!!
I rent and have a toolbox that I store in the entryway closet ,on racks which are high up, that way they are easily accessible while at the same time not taking up space which can be used for something else.
I had ample closet space in my old apartment so I stashed it there. I also managed to hide a 6 foot wooden ladder behind the couch. Was the perfect place! I am the queen of efficient storage. When I moved out of my 400 square foot apartment, I had to rent an 18 ft truck to fit it all!
vintage vinyl
Vintage Vinyl...hehe - did you live in St. Louis when you were 16, Sarahc?
If you are like me and live in a loft with high ceilings, look in your closets and then look up. Most of the time, these closets are only shelved out to 6' or 7' high. You may be able to install some shallow shelves all the way to the ceiling. They are difficult to access, you'll probly need a step ladder or a chair but for things like tools, that's where I stash mine!
I keep two of those cheapie plastic shoes drawers in the floor of our one storage closet. In one drawer are tools. In the other are things like packing tape, twine, etc. They stack just great and I put thing on top of them. Takes up very little space (which is at a premium).
Like jeffur we also have a secret "everything" closet.
It's hidden between the garage and the kitchen and our tools box plus 1,000,000 small home improvment items are stored in that closet...
My toolbox is under my kitchen sink because I don't have any other place big enough to put it. It fits perfect to the side of the drain pipe.
anniegroover--you can usually get drawers to run more smoothly by rubbing soap or a bit of candle in the areas that are sticky. if that doesn't work, try sanding it a bit, and then try the wax or soap again.
i have a whole armoire for my tools and supplies because i'm a crazy DIYer
Currently under the futon in the guest room.
I got i-level and ruler apps for my iphone :)
I've got mine under the kitchen sink with light bulbs, picture hanging hardware, cleaning supplies and a bucket. For a small apartment, I'm blessed with decent storage space.
in a crate on top of the fridge.


text:
When I switched to Photoshop, David Willis kindly let me put him through the wringer about his drawing method in the program. And it's made drawing way faster and better looking for me!
So I figured, in return, I should draw something for him that I knew he didn't already have. So here's Velma repenting and crying in front of the Hot Shot temple.


text:
Loading ...
Named one of the Top Eight Teaching Facilities in the United States in the August 1999 edition of Golf for Women magazine, Conte's Palm-Aire Golf Academy continues to welcome students in search of the expertise needed to improve their entire golf game. Academy Director Stephen Conte heads up a team of instructors comprised of PGA and LPGA teaching professionals who possess more than 80 years of combined experience. During individual and group lessons at Palm-Aire Country Club, students learn through the academy's unified teaching method. This system ensures that instruction stays consistent from instructor to instructor and students will never have to study with a substitute teacher that forces them to putt with pool cues.
The verdant brainchild of course architect William Mitchell, Deerfield Country Club's 18-hole course plots a 4,120-yard track through lush groves of palm trees and impeccably maintained turf. An executive layout composed of nine par 3s and nine par 4s, the course offers diverse play in a time-efficient package. New greens and recently refurbished bunkers compete for golf balls' affection, their success determined by dowries offered by paternal flagsticks and sand-trap rakes. Golfers streamline straight-hitting swings and soft, greenside shots at the practice facilities, which include a driving range with practice bunkers and an immense putting green. Leather chairs await weary legs in the clubhouse, where golfers can slake their thirst or clean off sand wedges with a sudsy drink from the bar.
Course at a Glance: * Designed by William Mitchell * 18-hole, par-63 course * Length of 4,120 yards from the farthest tees * Three tee options
It isn't often that a golfer gets to stare down the same approach over water or lay up in front of the same fairway stream as Tiger Woods, Sergio García, and Jesper Parnevik. But on Bonaventure Country Club's East Course, one can do just that: the par 72 half of this 36-hole club hosts the Dixie Amateur tournament, in which all three of the PGA pros at one time competed.
From the waterfall crashing alongside the East Course's third green to its presence on hole No. 5, water is never far from golfers —crowding tee shots, threatening to swallow errant drives, and following them home in to-go cups from the onsite Sunset Grill.
East Course at a Glance:
18-hole, par 72 course
Total length of 7,064 yards from the back tees
Course rating of 74.2 from the back tees
Course slope of 132 from the back tees
Four sets of tees per hole
The 36 holes of Orangebrook Golf & Country Club nestle amid verdant fairways and palm trees, patiently waiting for the clink of a golf ball. Before they hit the green, duffers can stock up on balls and other golf-related necessities at the pro shop and fuel up afterward at Nikki?s On The Green with omelets, pastas, sandwiches, and salads. The lighted driving range, open until 10 p.m., lets putters enjoy a moonlight round without the hassle of constantly relighting the candles affixed to their wedges. Throughout the daytime hours, Orangebrook director of golf and PGA--certified instructor Bob Mallek doles out expert tips on form and swing. Orangebrook also hosts the Women's International 4-Ball golf tournament, the longest-running women's amateur event in the United States.
Legendary course architect Donald Ross began design on the first nine holes of Delray Beach Golf Club in 1923, and when the course officially opened for play in 1926, players embraced the layout's variety of shot scenarios. When the course closed during World War II, the grounds sat idle, forcing the course carts to join the Allied forces as lightweight tanks.
Delray Beach Club reopened in 1945 and, five years later, the city sculpted a back nine to create a modern, championship course that stretches 6,907 yards for a par of 72. The original challenges still exist today, beckoning golfers to rely on every club in their bag as they take on par 4s that range from 347 to 451 yards, where treating the hole like a par 5 is often the best strategy. A stream enters play on five holes, running parallel to both the par 5 first hole and the par 3 sixth, forcing players to fight the urge to chip onto a passing lily pad and let it carry the ball downstream.
Course at a Glance: * 18-hole, par 72 course * Total length of 6,907 yards from the back tees * Course rating of 72 from the back tees * Course slope of 123 from the back tees * Four sets of tees available * Scorecard
At Villa Delray Golf Club, GPS-equipped golf carts zoom over lush, green fairways and past ponds visited by long-beaked ibises and snowy egrets. Before driving and putting their way through the par 71, 18-hole course, golfers can dig up divots at a grass driving range with 20 hitting stations, practice chipping, or dribble their balls up to the hole and dunk them on a putting green. After a day in the sun, players can refuel at the restaurant, bar, or snack shop, and stop by the pro shop to replace uncooperative dimpled orbs.


text:
Start learning with our library of video tutorials taught by experts. Get started
Learn how to craft materials like wood, metal, and glass and light your scene inside the Unity 3D game engine.
Explore the world of modeling and texturing game props and assets, from tools to furniture, in Autodesk Maya.
"I almost feel as if I am in a classroom but with the benefit of sitting at my home computer." —Christine B.
more from our members »


text:
Mt. Pleasant Public School District is increasing security at several schools.
According to District Superintendent Michael Pung, new cameras and buzzers are being installed at the main entrances of five elementary schools.
The schools will also be on lockdown most of the day, but open in the morning when school starts and at the end of the day.
The measures are an attempt to keep everyone safe and come after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut late last year.
Pung says all schools in the district will have similar systems in about 30 days.


text:
The following thoughts about Wolfe's novel Peace were posted to the Urth mailing list April 17, 1998. I've made minor revisions, but thought other readers of Peace might find them interesting. I really like Peace, and enjoyed the change of pace from the more "pure" SF storytelling Wolfe uses more frequently. I always recommend Peace as a novel that you might try to get your lit-crit SF-avoiding friends to read.The final story of the geese seems to be crucial for making sense of Peace. As Adam Stephanides already said Weer is the one who has dwindled. But if Christian Baptism is the only hope for Weer in the novel, one might ask where else is this intimated and does Weer ever receive it, or possibly demonstrate the "baptism of desire".
Some thoughts, since I just finished reading Peace and had a small book club discussion on it.
(Another Lovecraftian nod is found on p.6 of the Orb trade paperback, where in a brilliant musing on the potential for other racial stereotypes Wolfe writes:
the bland chance of the scientists (whose blind, piping ape-god, idiot god, we have met before; we know you, troubler of Babylon)which seems to bear more than a passing resemblance to Azathoth.)
Also of note is his meal of donuts and tea with sugar, which Maggie slips him under the table.
What of the Egg? It contains scenes of the 'less dramatic elements of the resurrection narrative. One of which (breakfast on the shore) is the story of Peter's restoration after his betrayal, also relevant for Weer's situation.
The Egg as art-object though causes no end of trouble as Macafee and Olivia scheme to get each other to give it to them in return for marriage.
Comments to: Paul Duggan
All contents except cover reproductions
copyright © 1998, 2000 Paul Duggan
Published to Web September 26, 2000.
All contents except cover reproductions copyright © 1998, 2000 Paul Duggan
Published to Web September 26, 2000.


text:
Endoscopy Asia is a world class state of the art Tertiary Institute for Diagnostic and Therapeutic Gastrointestinal and Pancreato-Biliary Endoscopy & Gastroenterology, centrally located at Sion, Mumbai, India. Endoscopy Asia was inaugurated on the 23rd November, 2008 by His Holiness Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Founder of Isha Foundation, Coimbatore, India.
Gastroenterology and Endoscopy have evolved into a subspecialty and over the last five decades the technological advancements have made it possible to detect, diagnose, stage and treat several gastrointestinal and pancreato-biliary ailments now without conventional surgery. Our team consists of leading Gastroenterology Doctors in Mumbai.
Apart from routine diagnostic and therapeutic OGD Scopy, Colonoscopy, ERCP and Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS), Endoscopy Asia has also acquired the much needed Single Balloon Enteroscope.
This will allow us detailed evaluation of the entire small bowel (intestine) thus there are no blind areas in the gastrointestinal tract for the endoscopist as the entire tract from mouth to rectum is now accessible with a flexible endoscope and with the ability of biopsy as well as therapeutic interventions. Single Balloon Enteroscopy scores over Capsule Endoscopy which is only a diagnostic tool as Biopsy and Interventions are not possible at present with the commercially available Capsule Endoscopy Technology.
To establish Endoscopy as main stream specialized medical branch for the Diagnosis and Therapy of several Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Diseases.
To provide safe, cost effective, minimal access Endoscopy as a Diagnostic and Therapeutic procedure for all Gastroenterology related Disorders.
Clinical Excellence - Deliver the best clinical care in a consistent manner through evidence based practice resulting in predictable outcomes.
Commitment - Dedicated to its mission and to uphold the highest professional integrity
Compassion - Caring for every individual by being sensitive and attentive to their needs in a timely and appropriate manner.
Respect - Treating every individual with consideration and dignity
Integrity - Upholding firm principles and demonstrating a high level of trust, honesty and transparency.
To provide the Highest Quality Affordable World Class Healthcare in the field of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy for the entire spectrum of society.
Strict adherence to International Guidelines for Patient Safety, Updated Diagnostic and Therapeutic Treatment Protocols.
Yogi, mystic and visionary, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev is a spiritual master with a difference. An arresting blend of profundity and pragmatism, his life and work serve as a reminder that yoga is not an esoteric discipline from an outdated past, but a contemporary science, vitally relevant to our times. Probing, passionate and provocative, deeply insightful, devastatingly logical and unfailingly witty, Sadhguru's talks have earned him the reputation of a speaker and opinion-maker of international renown.
With speaking engagements that take him around the world, he is widely sought after by prestigious global forums to address issues as diverse as human rights, business values, social, environmental and existential issues. He has been a delegate to the United Nations Millennium Peace Summit, a member of the World Council of Religious Leaders, as well as a special invitee to the recent Australian Leadership Retreat, Tallberg Forum and the World Economic Forum at Davos in January 2006 & 2007, Indian Economic Summit 2005 & 2006. Listeners have been ubiquitously impressed by his astute and incisive grasp of current issues and world affairs, as well as his unerringly scientific approach to the question of human well being.
Sadhguru is also the founder of Isha Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to the well-being of the individual and the world. Isha Foundation does not promote any particular ideology, religion, or race, but transmits inner sciences of universal appeal.
Following Sadhguru's vision, the Foundation is engaged in initiating multitudes into the science of inner well-being, helping them to realize their ultimate potential within. The Foundation has also set up several outreach projects for the socially disadvantaged, serving as models for rural upliftment, education reform, holistic and healthy living, and environmental stewardship, such as Action for Rural Rejuvenation, Isha Vidhya, Project Green Hands and Isha AIDS Awareness Campaign and Inner Freedom for the imprisoned. In addition, it has pioneered several renowned initiatives for world peace.


text:
Sign up to receive information about new books, author events, and special offers.
Editor Lisa Belkin is a reporter for The New York Times and author of that newspaper's "Life's Work" column. She is the author of Life's Work: Confessions of an Unbalanced Mom, First, Do No Harm, and Show Me a Hero. Belkin lives with her family in Westchester County, New York.
© 2014 Macmillan
Powered by Supadü


text:
10 Ingredients, 10 Healthy Dishes
Pages in this Story:
- Ingredient Lists
- Hummus Plate with Broccoli, Cherry Tomatoes, and Whole Wheat Tortillas
- Rotisserie Chicken with Roasted Broccoli and Potatoes
- Twice-Baked Potato with Melted Cheese and Broccoli
- Spinach Salad with Cheddar Cheese and Tomato
- Egg and Chicken Salad Wrap
- Chickpea Soup with Spinach and Tomato
- Broiled Salmon Fillets with Hummus Sauce
- Salmon, Spinach, and Cheddar Omelet
- Salmon Nicoise Salad
- Open-Faced "Pizza" with Cheddar Cheese, Roasted Cherry Tomatoes, and Chicken
Broiled Salmon Fillets with Hummus SauceBroiled Salmon Fillets with Hummus Sauce
Makes 4 servings
4 (4- to 6-ounce) salmon fillets
1 tablespoon extra virgin olive oil
Kosher salt
Freshly ground black pepper
1/2 cup prepared hummus
1/2 teaspoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
- Preheat the broiler and set oven rack 4 inches from the heat.
- Place the salmon fillets on a baking sheet. Drizzle with the oil; season with salt and pepper.
- Broil until just cooked through, 6 to 8 minutes.
- To make the sauce, combine the hummus with 5 tablespoons water in a small skillet over medium-high heat.
- Simmer 1 to 2 minutes, then season with lemon juice, salt and pepper.
- Drizzle the sauce over the salmon fillets and serve.
Nutrition facts per serving: 313 calories, 35g protein, 5g carbohydrate, 17g fat (3g saturated), 2g fiber
What do you think of this story? Leave a Comment.


text:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
If you auto-attack, you will get rage in bear form. At lower levels, however, the difference between your bear and kitty base stats are not going to be as apparent as they will be at 80, and if you're already in dire straits, chances are a quick swap to bear will be less effective than a desperate heal in caster. Bear isn't really built for lower level usage, in my experience.