text:
|Case Document
|November 19, 2001
Appellants' Opening Brief
|No. 321A01
JAMES & MARY ANN STUMBO, individually and on behalf of SCOTT STUMBO, STEPHEN STUMBO, ALLISON STUMBO and JONIE STUMBO, minors,
Civil Action No. 01-P-75
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Table of Cases and Authorities
- In a Case Brought Pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303, Must the Government Prove That There Are Reasonable Grounds For Suspecting That a Person Has Abused or Neglected a Child?
- The Statutory Phrase, "Without Lawful Excuse," Requires the DSS to Make a Showing Before Expanding the Scope of an Investigation Over Parents' Objections.
- The "Lawful Excuse Rule" Mandates that Trial Courts Consider Evidence and to Make Findings and Conclusions Demonstrating that Sufficient Grounds Existed to Expand a Child Neglect Investigation.
- The "Lawful Excuse Rule" Ensures that a Neutral, Detached Magistrate Will Decide the Scope of Child Neglect Investigations, Not Social Workers.
- Like North Carolina, Many States Require a Showing of Neglect Before a Court May Issue a Noninterference Order.
- Noninterference Order is a Judicial Warrant that Must be Supported by Probable Cause
- The Statutory Phrase, "Without Lawful Excuse," Requires the DSS to Make a Showing Before Expanding the Scope of an Investigation Over Parents' Objections.
- Does the Investigation Mandated by N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-302 and Implemented by N.C. ADMIN. CODE tit. 10 � 41I.0305 Constitute a "Search" for Constitutional Purposes, as Judge Greene Argues in His Dissent?
- A Search Must Be Evaluated on What Officials Did at the Time of the Incident.
- DSS Asserted a Right and a Duty to Enter the Stumbos' Home
- The Government May Not Demand Entry into a Home Without Probable Cause and a Warrant.
- Parents Have a Right to Oppose Unlawful Assertions of Government Authority
- A Search Must Be Evaluated on What Officials Did at the Time of the Incident.
- Is the Court-Ordered Separation of a Parent and Child for the Purpose of Unrestricted Personal Interrogation of the Child a "Seizure" Within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
- The Temporary Removal of a Child from the Custody of Their Parents is a Seizure Within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
- Parents May Assert the Fourth Amendment Rights of their Minor Children
- The Temporary Removal of a Child from the Custody of Their Parents is a Seizure Within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Anderson v. Creighton,
Calabretta v. Floyd,
189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999)
Corum v. University of North Carolina Through Bd. of Governors,
330 N.C. 761, 413 S.E.2d 276 (1992)
Ferguson v. City of Charleston,
Fowler v. Valencourt,
108 N.C.App. 106, 423 S.E.2d 785 (1992)
Good v. Dauphin Social Servs.,
891 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1989)
Griffin v. Wisconsin,
H.R. v. State Dep't of Human Resources,
612 So.2d 477 (1992)
Hollingsworth v. Hill,
110 F.3d 733 (10th C, 1997)
Hurlman v. Rice,
927 F.2d 74 (2d Cir.1991)
In re Stumbo,
547 S.E.2d 451 (N.C. Ct.App. 2001)
Kia P v. McIntyre,
2 F.Supp.2d 281 (E.D.N.Y.1998)
King v. State,
246 Miss. 86, 149 So.2d 482 (1963)
Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Social Services,
191 F.3d 1306 (10th C. 1999)
Moore v. Evans,
124 N.C.App. 35, 476 S.E.2d 415 (1996)
New Jersey v. T.L.O.,
People v. Young,
100 Ill.App.2d 20, 241 N.E.2d 587 (1968)
Ram v. Rubin,
118 F.3d 1306 (9th C. 1997)
Renn v. Garrison,
845 F.Supp. 1127 (1994)
Roberts v. Swain,
126 N.C.App. 712, 487 S.E.2d 760 (1997)
Robinson v. Via,
821 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1987)
Rogers v. Pendleton,
249 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2001)
Santosky v. Kramer,
State v. Buckner,
351 N.C. 401, 527 S.E. 2d 307 (2000)
State v. Carter,
322 N.C. 709, 370 S.E.2d 553 (1988)
State v. Cesero,
146 Conn. 375, 151 A.2d 338 (1959)
State v. Covington,
273 N.C. 690, 161 S.E.2d 140 (1968)
State v. Duncan,
270 N.C. 241, 154 S.E. 2d 53 (1967)
State v. Filor,
13 P.3d 926 (Kan. App. 2000)
State v. Gaines,
483 S.E.2d 396 (N.C. 1997)
State v. Hill,
132 N.C. App. 209, 510 S.E. 2d 413 (1999)
State v. Isleib,
80 N.C. App. 599, 343 S.E. 2d 234 (1986)
State v. Mooring,
State v. Robinson,
248 N.C. 282, 103 S.E.2d 376 (1958)
State v. Smith,
346 N.C. 794, 488 S.E.2d 210 (1997)
State v. Sparrow,
276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E.2d 897 (1970)
Stump v. Sparkman,
Tenenbaum v. Williams,
193 F.3d 581 (2nd Cir. 1999)
Thornhill v. Alabama,
Troxel v. Granville,
United States v. Mendenhall,
Van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep't of Social Services,
911 F.2d 863 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Wallis v. Spencer,
202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) 37,
Wyman v. James,
Yuan v. Rivera,
48 F.Supp.2d 335 (S.D.N.Y.1999)
16 Del. Code Ann. � 910(a) and (b)
325 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7.5
55 Pa. Code � 3490.73 (2001)
Ala. Code � 26-14-7(c)
Ariz. Rev. Stat. � 8-803(C)
Ark. Code Ann. � 12-12-510(b)
Colo. Rev. Stat. � 19-3-308(3)(b)
Fla. Stat. Ch. 39.301(10)
Ind. Code � 31-33-8-7(c)
Iowa Code � 232.71B.5
Ky. Rev. Stat. � 620.040(5)(a)
La. Child. Code 613(A)
Minn. Stat. � 626.556(10)(f)
N.C. ADMIN. CODE tit. 10 � 41I.0305
N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-307(a)
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, � 7106(C)(2) (2001)
Or. Admin. R. 413-020-0430(8)(b)(L) (2001)
Or. Admin. R. 413-020-0430(8)(b)(L)(i) (2001)
R.I. Gen. Laws � 40-11-7(c) (2000)
S.C. Code Ann.� 20-7-490(14) (2001)
S.C. Code Ann.� 20-7-650(D) (2001)
Tenn. Code Ann. � 37-1-406(e) (2001)
Tex. Fam. Code � 261.303(b) (2001)
Utah Code Ann. � 62A-4a-409(8) (2001)
Wis. Stat. � 48.981(3)(c)3 (2001)
Wyo. Stat. Ann. � 14-3-204(a)(iii) (2001)
Other Authorities
Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel,
Criminal Procedure � 9.2 at 732-33 and nn. 26-28 (1984)
692 Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990)
Colo. Rev. Stat. � 19-3-308(3)(b)
Cooley, Constitutional Limitations
364 (6th Ed. 1890)
|No. 321A01
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JAMES & MARY ANN STUMBO, individually and on behalf of SCOTT STUMBO, STEPHEN STUMBO, ALLISON STUMBO and JONIE STUMBO, minors,
From NC Court of Appeals
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I. In a case brought pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303, must the government prove that that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has abused or neglected a child?
II. Does the investigation mandated by N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-302 and implemented by N.C. ADMIN. CODE tit. 10 � 41I.0305 constitute a "search" for constitutional purposes, as Judge Greene argues in his dissent?
III. Is the court-ordered separation of a parent and child for the purpose of unrestricted personal interrogation of the child a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
On September 15, 1999, the Cleveland County District Court received a petition from the Cleveland County Department of Social Services ("DSS") for an order prohibiting interference with a child neglect investigation. (R p. 3) At the hearing on September 28, 1999, the court found that James and Mary Stumbo had violated N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303 by interfering with a child neglect investigation. The trial court sustained objections to the admission of evidence that would have supported the Stumbos' assertions that they had a lawful excuse for refusing to allow the DSS to expand the scope of the investigation, including a claim that the search of their home and seizure of their children would violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court made no finding that the noninterference order was supported by probable cause or any other standard to believe that abuse or neglect had occurred.
More than one hundred and twenty days later, on January 21, 2000, the district court finally ordered the Stumbos to permit DSS "to conduct an investigation as required by N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-302 and that Mr. and Stumbo [sic] are to not obstruct, interfere with the investigation as set forth in 7B-303(a) and 7B-303(b)." (R p. 23). In open court on Jan. 21, 2000, the Stumbos moved the court for a stay of this order, pending appeal, which it denied.
The Stumbos filed a written notice of appeal on February 3, 2000, and petitioned the Court of Appeals for a temporary stay and a writ of supersedeas, pending appeal. The Court of Appeals granted the temporary stay on February 4, 2000 and issued the writ of supersedeas on February 25, 2000.
On May 15, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a divided opinion in this case. Two members of the court concluded that no showing of neglect was required and that no search or seizure was involved. In re Stumbo, 547 S.E.2d 451, 454 (N.C. Ct.App. 2001). Judge Greene dissented, arguing that (1) social workers must demonstrate some reason to believe abuse or neglect has occurred before a court may issue a noninterference order; (2) the expansion of the child abuse investigation sought by DSS at the Stumbos' home is a "search," for constitutional purposes; and (3) a coercive interview of a child outside the presence of the parents and over the objections of the parents is a "seizure." This Court accepted these three questions for review.
Jim and Mary Anne Stumbo have four children. In August, 1999, they moved from Hickory to Kings Mountain. Their new house is on Wrights Road, a dead-end, one-lane road (T pp. 12, 27, 40, 46). Though the area is not wooded, one can only see the door of one other house from the Stumbos' driveway. (T p. 27).
Shortly after sunrise on September 9, 1999, Jonie, the Stumbos' youngest daughter, came downstairs. Mr. Stumbo took two-year-old Jonie into the bathroom (as he does most mornings) and then sent her back upstairs to get dressed for the day. Mr. Stumbo went back into his own room to get dressed. (T p. 40).
Jonie got distracted on her way up the stairs, however. The family had only been in their new house for three weeks (T p. 40). Jonie ran out the door after the family's kitten (T p. 16-17, 40), but her big brother Scott spotted her and brought her right back in. (T p. 40).
At or about the same time, the Cleveland County Department of Social Services received an allegation that there was a naked female child in the Stumbos' driveway. (T p. 11). DSS worker Tasha Lowery arrived at the scene within two hours. She spoke first to Mrs. Stumbo, who promptly called her husband on a cordless phone. (T pp. 15-16). Mr. Stumbo explained how Jonie had chased the kitten out the door (T p. 16-17), but the DSS worker informed Mr. Stumbo that she still needed to "talk with everybody in the household." (T p. 17). At that point, Mr. Stumbo told the DSS worker that he would come home from work to talk with her. (T p. 17). Mrs. Stumbo went inside. (T p. 19).
Tasha Lowery told the Stumbos she needed (1) "access" to complete her report, (2) "access to the children," and (3) any other means to allow her to fully investigate the allegation. (T p. 22). She testified that she must "make a home visit, talk with the parents privately and talk with the children privately" each time she conducts an investigation. (T pp. 14-15). The Stumbos argued that a "visit" did not require her to enter the home, but DSS expressly disagreed with that interpretation of the law. (T p. 31).
Mr. Stumbo soon arrived from work and spoke with the DSS worker, who was still standing outside. (T p. 42). Mr. Stumbo attempted to explain how Jonie had gotten out the door. (T pp. 42-43). Mr. Stumbo assumed the investigation would be complete as soon as the DSS worker found out what happened, saw that the children were all well taken care of, were clothed and dressed and fed. (T p. 43).
He was wrong. Ms. Lowery told Mr. Stumbo that "Cleveland County protocol" required her to interview the children privately and inspect the house. (T p. 43). The Stumbos did not object to allowing DSS to interview their children in their presence (T p. 59), but they did expressly object to a search of their home and separation from their children. (T p. 59). Mr. Stumbo said he believed the government needed probable cause to invade "the privacy of my home and the privacy of my children." (T p. 45).
DSS filed the petition in this case as a result. (Petition, R p. 3). The petition alleged:
On September 9, 1999 the Cleveland County Department of Social Services received a report alleging neglect of the above named children. Due to the nature of the allegations an immediate response was made by Social Worker Tasha Lowery. After explaining the nature of the allegations to the parents the social worker requested to interview the children in private. The parents contacted their attorney while the social worker was at the door. The social worker explained to the attorney the nature of the complaint. According to the parents their attorney advised them not to allow a private interview with the children nor access their home.
I. In a Case Brought Pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303, Must the Government Prove That There Are Reasonable Grounds For Suspecting That a Person Has Abused or Neglected a Child?
Assignment of Error No. 1
(R p. 30)
The statutory phrase "without lawful excuse," in N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303(c) (the "noninterference statute"), requires social workers to demonstrate more than simply that a parent has refused to comply with a social worker's demands. The statute does not give social workers carte blanche. As the dissent below would have held, there must be some showing that abuse or neglect has occurred before a court may issue a noninterference order under N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303(c). In re Stumbo, 547 S.E. 2d at 457-58 (Greene, J., dissenting).
Where a social worker's demands trench on Fourth Amendment rights, mere suspicion based on a single anonymous report is not enough; the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to believe that neglect has occurred. Furthermore, North Carolina law requires the trial court to consider evidence tending to demonstrate a "lawful excuse" for declining to allow social workers to enter the home or interview children outside the presence of their parents. A lawful excuse could range from a constitutional right, like the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures, to a common-sense conclusion that further investigation is not warranted under the circumstances. DSS made no showing of probable cause to justify expanding the scope of its investigation to include a search of the Stumbos' home or the custodial interrogation of their children. By refusing to consider evidence regarding the Stumbos' assertion of a lawful excuse, the trial court committed reversible error.
After the Stumbos declined to allow the social worker to enter their home and to interview their children privately, DSS filed a petition in juvenile court alleging only that the Stumbos were "obstructing or interfering with a child protective services investigation. . . ." Juvenile Summons and Notice of Hearing, R p. 3, 2. In its petition, DSS alleged nothing about the circumstances leading to the commencement of the investigation; the petition merely alleged that DSS had received a report alleging neglect, and that the Stumbos would not allow the social worker to conduct a private interview with their children and would not allow the social worker access to their home. Id. at 3.
The Stumbos argued to the trial court that under the noninterference statute DSS bore the burden of proving by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that any refusal to cooperate with DSS's demands was without lawful excuse. (T p. 57; Respondents' Brief Opposing Petition for Noninterference Order, R p. 12). At the hearing on the petition, DSS objected to the admission of the Stumbos' evidence about the relevant circumstances and events relating to whether they had a "lawful excuse." (T pp. 34-35, 40-42, 49). The trial Court sustained the objections on the ground that the only purpose of the hearing was to determine "whether there was interference in an investigation, not the nature of the actual allegations that were reported." Id, at 40. The Stumbos assigned error to this ruling and the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court. In re Stumbo, 143 N.C. App.375, 547 S.E. 2d 451, 456 (2001). These rulings are erroneous and this Court should reverse.
A. The Statutory Phrase, "Without Lawful Excuse," Requires the DSS to Make a Showing Before Expanding the Scope of an Investigation Over Parents' Objections.
The noninterference statute establishes the statutory standard DSS was required to meet before the trial court could issue a noninterference order. It provides, in part, that DSS bore the burden of proving "by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that [the Stumbos], without lawful excuse, . . . obstructed or interfered with [its] investigation . . . ." N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303(c) (emphasis added).
The statutory phrase "without lawful excuse" is not defined. As the United States Supreme Court has held, "The phrase 'without a just cause or legal excuse' does not in any effective manner restrict the breadth of the regulation; the words themselves have no ascertainable meaning either inherent or historical." Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 100 (1944). Accordingly, if the phrase "without lawful excuse" has no "historical" meaning in North Carolina law, it would be unconstitutionally vague. Additionally, when interpreting a statute, courts must give meaning to all of the statute's provisions. State v. Buckner, 351 N.C. 401, 408, 527 S.E. 2d 307 (2000). By refusing to consider the Stumbos' evidence under the lawful excuse rule, the trial court and the Court of Appeals erroneously rendered the statutory phrase "without lawful excuse" to be a nullity.
The lawful excuse rule is neither vague nor mere surplusage. The lawful excuse rule has an historical meaning in North Carolina case law, which gives the noninterference statute a precise meaning. By including "without lawful excuse" in the noninterference statute, the legislature intended to require trial courts to consider evidence of the factual circumstances surrounding a report of child neglect. Furthermore, in non-emergency situations, the lawful excuse rule mandates that North Carolina courts may issue a noninterference order only on a finding that sufficiently adequate grounds exist to believe that neglect or abuse has occurred to justify expanding the scope of the search or interrogation over the parents objection.
B. The "Lawful Excuse Rule" Mandates that Trial Courts Consider Evidence and to Make Findings and Conclusions Demonstrating that Sufficient Grounds Existed to Expand a Child Neglect Investigation.
The "lawful excuse rule" had its origin in North Carolina law in State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 287, 103 S.E.2d 376 (1958). See State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 245, 154 S.E. 2d 53, 57 (1967). In the context of probation revocation hearings, the Court of Appeals has held that "in applying the 'lawful excuse' rule, a trial court is mandated to consider facts brought forth by the defendant which demonstrate that he has a lawful excuse. . . ." State v. Hill, 132 N.C. App. 209, 212, 510 S.E. 2d 413, 415 (1999). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals explained that the policy behind the "lawful excuse rule" involves "conscientious judgment, not arbitrary or willful action. It takes account of the law and the particular circumstances of the case, and is directed by the reason and conscience of the judge as to a just result." Id. (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted).
Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that under the lawful excuse rule, a trial court must make findings of fact that clearly show that it considered and evaluated the lawful excuse evidence. Id. "Obviously, defendant is entitled to have his evidence considered and evaluated." Id. In other words, it was not enough for DSS simply to offer evidence that a demand was made and rejected; the "lawful excuse rule" required the trial court to admit and consider evidence regarding whether the rejection "was for a lawful reason." In the Matter of Browning, 124 N.C. App. 190, 191, 476 S.E. 2d 465, 466 (1996) (evaluating evidence that parent's refusal to submit children to psychiatric evaluation based on First Amendment free exercise of religion clause constituted a lawful excuse under N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303). The Court of Appeals' majority opinion in this case is baffling in the light of its earlier holding in Browning.
In an investigation of a report of alleged child abuse or neglect, the "particular circumstances of the case" include the nature of the allegations, identity of the reporter, evidence explaining the facts leading to the report, evidence tending to show that the allegations are unfounded, and evidence surrounding the assertion of a constitutional right to be free from the demands of the social workers. For example, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina expressly held that the statutory phrase "without lawful excuse" in the noninterference statute allows parents to raise rights protected by federal law in a hearing conducted under N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303. Renn v. Garrison, 845 F.Supp. 1127, 1130 (1994). It is difficult to imagine how a respondent in a petition alleging obstruction or interference with a child neglect investigation could raise a federal claim as a lawful excuse without introducing evidence in support of that claim.
C. The "Lawful Excuse Rule" Ensures that a Neutral, Detached Magistrate Will Decide the Scope of Child Neglect Investigations, Not Social Workers.
The legislative intent behind requiring social workers to petition a magistrate before pursuing a child neglect investigation over the objections of parents is to ensure that an orderly process is followed, involving judicial impartiality, whereby a neutral and detached magistrate can make informed and deliberate determinations regarding the need for further investigation. See State v. Isleib, 80 N.C. App. 599, 607, 343 S.E. 2d 234, 239 (1986) (describing role of magistrate; overruled on other grounds). To leave such decisions to social workers in non-emergency situations would allow hurried actions by those engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out child neglect. See id.
As the Supreme Court said in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362 (1978), the factors that determine "whether an act by a judge is a 'judicial' one relate to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." Even in emergency situations the legislature has required social workers to demonstrate to a magistrate that probable cause exists to believe that the juvenile is at risk of immediate harm. N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303(d). If the state must demonstrate probable cause in an emergency, it would be senseless to hold that the legislature intended that no showing at all is required in a non-emergency. The noninterference statute requires "clear, cogent, and convincing" evidence that the refusal was without lawful excuse. Under the well-established "lawful excuse rule," a court cannot properly discharge its duty without fully considering proffered evidence tending to show that no adequate cause exists to justify expanding the scope of the investigation.
In this case, the social worker arrived at the home to find the mother present, all of the children being properly supervised, and all of the children well cared for and showing no signs of abuse or neglect. Both Mrs. Stumbo and Mr. Stumbo explained that the circumstances surrounding the report were such that any reasonably objective social worker would conclude that all was well at the Stumbo home. But because her "protocol" required her to search the home and interrogate the children privately, Ms. Lowery and DSS have blindly sought to check all the protocol boxes with absolutely no showing that the Stumbo children are likely victims of abuse or neglect, much less that probable cause exists.
D. Like North Carolina, Many States Require a Showing of Neglect Before a Court May Issue a Noninterference Order.
At least 23 states have statutory or administrative provisions requiring social services agencies to petition courts to issue noninterference orders if parents object to expanding the scope of the investigation. Many of those statutory provisions expressly require a showing by the social workers that probable cause, reasonable grounds, reasonable suspicion, good cause shown, or some other grounds exist to believe that abuse or neglect has occurred before a magistrate may issue a noninterference order. Each of these statutes reflect a legislative intent that is similar to that of the legislature in North Carolina: once parents object to particular aspects of a social worker's investigation, it is the courts -- not the social worker -- that will determine whether there is a proper ground to expand the scope of the investigation.
For example, in H.R. v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 612 So.2d 477, 479 (1992), the court interpreted the statutory phrase "cause shown" in Alabama's noninterference statute to mean "reasonable or probable cause shown, i.e., reasonable or probable cause shown to believe that there has been an abuse of a child. . . ." The court reasoned that unsworn hearsay in a report to social services rose at best to mere suspicion and would not support a noninterference order. Id. Generally, "good cause shown" or "just cause" has been held to be equivalent to "without lawful excuse." See, e.g., State v. Filor, 13 P.3d 926, 927 (Kan. App. 2000); see also 692 Blacks Law Dictionary, "Good cause. Term generally means a substantial reason amounting in law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act required by law." (6th Ed. 1990). Judge Greene in his dissent below agreed that under North Carolina law, the state must make a showing of reasonable ground to suspect that neglect had occurred and that an anonymous report alone "would rarely, in itself, constitute reasonable grounds for suspecting a person to have abused/neglected a child." In re Stumbo, 547 S.E.2d 457, n 4 (N.C. App. 2001) (Greene, J., dissenting).
E. Noninterference Order is a Judicial Warrant that Must be Supported by Probable Cause
While Judge Greene was correct that some showing was required, the United States Supreme Court has said that every judicial warrant requires probable cause:
While it is possible to say that the Fourth Amendment reasonableness demands probable cause without a judicial warrant, the reverse runs up against the constitutional provision that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." Amendment 4. The Constitution prescribes, in other words, that where the matter is of such a nature as to require a judicial warrant, it is also of such a nature as to require probable cause.
Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 877 (1987) (emphasis added).
The trial court order is a judicial warrant: it tells the Stumbos that they "are to not obstruct, interfere with the investigation[.]" R. p. 23. As such, it does not comport with the Fourth Amendment, which requires every warrant to "particularly describe the place to be searched." The trial court left the "place to be searched" completely up to DSS. In open court, the trial court explained that the decision about whether to enter the home would be up to the social worker: "I'm not ordering anyone into the home. If you all want to do your investigation, you do your investigation. If you determine that you don't need to go into the home, determine that. All I'm ordering is that they not interfere." (T p. 72). In other words, while the court order does not mandate entry into the home, neither does it forbid entry. The trial court gave the social worker a blank check relative to all aspects of the investigation including entry into the home. The Stumbos were told to simply comply with every whim of the social worker under this unlimited authorization.
Additionally, according to the trial court and the majority opinion, neither the specific nature of the hearsay allegation nor any evidence of surrounding circumstances refuting the allegation are relevant. According to the trial court and the majority opinion below, the only relevant inquiry at the hearing on a petition for a noninterference order is whether the social worker sought to expand the scope of the investigation and the parents refused to allow it. According to the trial court and majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, the Stumbos could now be held in criminal contempt if they refuse the social worker entry to their home or refuse the private interrogation of their young children.
Rather than exercising what the legislature has determined to be a judicial function, the trial court deferred to the determination of the social worker backed by the prospect of contempt proceedings. By abdicating the role of the neutral, detached magistrate, the trial court thwarted the legislative intent behind the "lawful excuse rule" and the Fourth Amendment.
North Carolina law requires more. The trial court was duty-bound to carefully consider evidence of all the circumstances and after reasoned deliberation to determine whether the facts of this case justified expanding the investigation to include a search of the Stumbos' home and justified seizure of their children to interrogate them in private. That was the demand made at the Stumbos' door. That was the demand the Stumbos rejected. That demand was not justified by reasonable grounds or the surrounding circumstances in this case, much less probable cause.
More than two years have passed since the social worker appeared at the front door of the Stumbos' home and demanded to enter and to interrogate their children without justification. No useful purpose can be served by remanding this case for further findings. This Court should reverse the Court of Appeals and the trial court and order that the petition be dismissed with prejudice.
II. Does the Investigation Mandated by N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-302 and Implemented by N.C. ADMIN. CODE tit. 10 � 41I.0305 Constitute a "Search" for Constitutional Purposes, as Judge Greene Argues in His Dissent?
Assignments of Error No. 2, 4
(R p. 30)
Contrary to the Court of Appeals opinion, the record reflects that DSS sought entry into the home as well as private interviews with each child. It was that assertion of right that the Stumbos claimed a "lawful excuse" to resist. If DSS had no right to enter the home on September 9, 1999, then the Stumbos "lawful excuse" for resisting that entry must prevail. This Court should reverse the trial court and hold that the demand DSS made at the door was a search requiring probable cause.
A. A Search Must Be Evaluated on What Officials Did at the Time of the Incident.
Whether DSS demanded to search the Stumbos' home depends solely on what happened when Tasha Lowery came to their door. DSS argues that the incident at the door doesn't matter; that the only thing that matters now is the order the trial court issued (Petitioner/Appellee's Court of Appeals Brief, p. 7). This cannot be true: if parents can claim a "lawful excuse" at all, then it must be a lawful excuse to oppose what happened at the door. Timing always matters when government action intrudes upon the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens. The lawfulness of official action is determined as it was at the time of the alleged violation, not as the officials recast their assertions long after the fact.
The "facts at the door" always matter when citizens resist government action. They matter when citizens claim a right to resist an unlawful search of the home. Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2001) (an unlawful arrest in the home); State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 512, 173 S.E.2d 897, 906 (1970). They matter in probable cause cases, because probable cause is always determined by what the officer actually knew at the time, not by what somebody did or said later. Moore v. Evans, 124 N.C.App. 35, 476 S.E.2d 415 (1996); Fowler v. Valencourt, 108 N.C.App. 106, 112, 423 S.E.2d 785, 788 (1992). They matter in qualified immunity cases, which always turn on the "objective legal reasonableness" of an official's action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the action was taken. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, (1987); Roberts v. Swain, 126 N.C.App. 712, 718, 487 S.E.2d 760, 765 (1997); Corum v. University of North Carolina Through Bd. of Governors, 330 N.C. 761, 777, 413 S.E.2d 276, 286 (1992). The facts at the door matter here, too.
The Stumbos claimed a lawful excuse to say "no" to Tasha Lowery's demands at the door, not an excuse to say "no" to her lawyer's toned-down demands made months later in appellate court briefs. The Stumbos refused to submit to DSS at the door because neither the facts nor the law required them to allow a warrantless entry of their home or seizure of their children.
B. DSS Asserted a Right and a Duty to Enter the Stumbos' Home
The Court of Appeals erroneously reads the record to indicate that "Lowery was seeking merely to interview the children in private, and did not at any time seek to enter the home." In re Stumbo, 547 S.E.2d at 454-55. This is inaccurate. DSS demanded entry, and DSS conceded in its appellate brief that Ms. Lowery did request an opportunity to see the home.
The record shows that Ms. Lowery was seeking to enter the home at every step of the investigation. On the phone, Mr. Stumbo told her how Jonie had chased the kitten out the door (T p. 17), but she said she still needed to talk with everybody "in the household." (T p. 17). She told him that "Cleveland County protocol" required her to interview the children privately and "inspect the house." (T p. 43).
The record clearly shows that the Stumbos understood this to mean "entry into the home," and Ms. Lowery understood it to mean the same thing. When she told the Stumbos that she needed "access" to complete her report (in addition to "access to the children" (T p. 22), she did so because the regulations require her to "assess whether the specific environment in which the child is found meets the child's need for care and protection." N.C. ADMIN. CODE tit. 10 � 41I.0305(a)(1) (emphasis added). Although the Stumbos argued that the "specific environment," in this case, meant the driveway (Respondent's Brief Opposing Petition, R. 8), DSS has never accepted that proposition.
The DSS worker testified that she must "make a home visit, talk with the parents privately and talk with the children privately" each time she conducts an investigation. (T pp. 14-15). Her duty to "make a home visit" comes straight from the Administrative Code, which requires her to conduct "a visit to the place where the child or children reside." N.C. ADMIN. CODE tit. 10 � 41I.0305(e). The Stumbos, at their door, argued that a "visit" did not require her to enter the home, but DSS expressly disagreed with that interpretation of the law. (T p. 31).
When the trial judge characterized the case as "merely wanting to talk to the children," the Stumbos immediately corrected her, and the judge agreed with that correction:
THE COURT: And you think that's a violation of their constitutional rights because they just want to talk to them about a report; is that what you're saying to the Court?
STUMBOS' ATTORNEY: More specifically because they want to enter the home without probable cause.
THE COURT: They want to enter the home without probable cause, okay.
(T pp. 54-55).
The DSS worker testified that she did not "ask" to enter the home, yet DSS concedes that she "did request an opportunity to see the home" in their appellate brief. Petitioner/Appellee's Court of Appeals Brief, p. 8. The Court of Appeals, relying so completely on one single, self-serving statement, disregards modern investigative technique: investigators are trained to get information, not permission. Asking for permission only gives the subject a chance to say "no." The uncontroverted evidence in the record indicates that while Ms. Lowery may not have asked permission to enter the Stumbo home, she told them that her protocol required that she enter. Demanding that "my protocol requires access to your home" is not a request and is considerably more daunting to refuse.
In this case, however, the Stumbos said "no" anyway, and were taken to court for it:
DSS ATTORNEY: Now, and did you ask to go inside the home?
TASHA LOWERY: No.
DSS ATTORNEY: But you were told you could not come inside the home; is that correct?
TASHA LOWERY: Well, right because they went - they went into the house and closed the door and I was still outside.
(T p. 39).
Mr. Stumbo went inside and closed the door because he understood Cleveland County protocol to require DSS to "inspect his home." DSS, which filed this suit, has never disavowed the right to do so. DSS never suggested they could get by without entry until after the trial court judge began to realize that her order might violate the Fourth Amendment, even though she had already decided social workers could not violate the Constitution. (T pp. 71-72). Beginning at the front door, in its petition and throughout this litigation, DSS has taken the position that social workers have a right and a duty to enter homes, with or without probable cause. That remains the central controversy in this case. The reason the Stumbos did not submit to DSS was to protect their home from a groundless search and their children from an unjustified custodial interrogation.
C. The Government May Not Demand Entry Into a Home Without Probable Cause and a Warrant.
Warrantless searches of private homes by government officials are presumptively illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). "It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable." State v. Smith, 346 N.C. 794, 798, 488 S.E.2d 210, 213 (1997).
DSS contends that the Fourth Amendment only applies to police, Petitioner/Appellee's Court of Appeals Brief, p. 8, n2, and calls it "ludicrous" to apply it to social workers, (T p. 60). Court after court has disagreed. See, e.g., Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999) (social workers had to pay damages for unlawful entry to home); Ram v. Rubin, 118 F.3d 1306 (9th C. 1997) (reversing decision that found police liable but granted qualified immunity to social workers because law was clearly established for police and social workers alike); Good v. Dauphin Social Servs., 891 F.2d 1087 (3d Cir. 1989) (social workers are subject to the Fourth Amendment and can be held liable for violating it); Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2nd Cir. 1999) (child welfare workers are subject to the Fourth Amendment because the law is "clearly established"). The United States Supreme Court has left no room for debate on this subject: the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the activities of civil as well as criminal authorities: "building inspectors, Occupational Safety and Health Act inspectors, and even firemen entering privately owned premises to battle a fire, are all subject to the restraints imposed by the Fourth Amendment." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 335 (1985) (citations omitted).
Some Fourth Amendment cases do discuss the presence of the police along with social workers, but these tend to be qualified immunity cases, where the court must determine whether the law was "clearly established" at the moment of the incident, not whether the Fourth Amendment applies to social workers. It clearly does.
There was no police presence in Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001), where the United States Supreme Court refused to create a "special needs exception" for hospital workers who were trying to help "crack babies." The Court concluded that a hospital's mandatory urine test policy violated the Fourth Amendment. If the police were involved in any way, it was, as Judge Greene noted in his dissent, exactly as they are involved here: North Carolina law requires social workers to turn evidence of criminal wrongdoing over to law enforcement. In re Stumbo, 547 S.E.2d at 457 (Greene, J., dissenting) (citing Ferguson, supra, 121 S.Ct. at 1292). Unlike Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971) (where welfare recipients were required to submit to home visits as a condition of receiving benefits), the government here has coercive power to enter the home in search of evidence. This violates the Fourth Amendment.
The trial court tried to distinguish away the cases that hold social workers subject to the Fourth Amendment on the basis of things that happened after they entered a home or seized a child. (T p. 53). This is illogical: if the parents had a right to keep the social worker out of the home, that right existed before the social worker came through the door, and cannot depend on what happened after the social worker got in. Any bad things the social workers do after they enter the home without probable cause and a warrant may increase the damages they must pay, but they do not create constitutional liability. For example, in Calabretta, social workers strip searched the child after coercing entry. That made things worse, but the Constitution was violated the moment they came in the door.
Here, DSS has sought and has obtained a court order that allows it to demand anything it deems necessary "to carry out their duty to investigate." N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-303(b). As Judge Greene noted, this order may be enforced by civil or criminal contempt. In re Stumbo, 547 S.E.2d at 457 (Greene, J., dissenting). If DSS finds any evidence of a crime, it must immediately report it to the district attorney and local law enforcement. N.C. GEN. STAT. � 7B-307(a). This broad, coercive, search for evidence of criminal wrongdoing was not supported by probable cause (T p. 54) nor even by evidence sufficient to show some reasonable suspicion. In re Stumbo, 547 S.E.2d at 458 (Greene, J., dissenting). This investigation has expanded into an unconstitutional search.
D. Parents Have a Right to Oppose Unlawful Assertions of Government Authority
DSS's position at the door and at the hearing was that social workers were not state actors (T pp. 26, 50-51), the Fourth Amendment did not apply to child abuse investigations (T p. 25-26, 55), parents could not cite the Constitution as a "lawful excuse" in a � 7B-303 hearing (T p. 57), and that no "substantial constitutional rights" were implicated by a court order compelling the Stumbos to do whatever social workers believed was necessary to complete the investigation. (T pp. 73-77). The Stumbos objected to those assertions then, and they object to them now. Each time a public official carries out a lawful demand, they do their part to uphold the law. Each time a citizen resists an unlawful government demand, they do their part to uphold the Constitution.
The Fourth Circuit articulated this principle recently in Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 2001), where a homeowner was charged with obstruction of justice for refusing to permit a warrantless search of the curtilage of his home that was based on less than probable cause. The court upheld the homeowner's right to verbally oppose the police. Otherwise, "persons verbally opposing an illegal search would . . . have to walk a very fine line between granting implicit consent and objecting in a sufficiently vociferous manner as to constitute obstruction of justice." Rogers v. Pendleton 249 F.3d at 292 (4th C. 2001) (emphasis added).
One who resists an illegal entry is not resisting an officer in the discharge of the duties of his office. State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 512, 173 S.E.2d 897, 906 (1970), citing State v. Cesero, 146 Conn. 375, 151 A.2d 338 (1959); King v. State, 246 Miss. 86, 149 So.2d 482 (1963); People v. Young, 100 Ill.App.2d 20, 241 N.E.2d 587 (1968).
The right to resist an unlawful entry is based on the common law and on "the constitutional principle that a person's home is his castle." Sparrow, 276 N.C. at 512, citing Semayne's Case, 77 Eng.Rep. 194, 195, 11 English Ruling Cases 628, 631 (1604) (emphasis added); Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 364 (6th Ed. 1890); State v. Covington, 273 N.C. 690, 698, 161 S.E.2d 140, 146 (1968); State v. Mooring, 115 N.C. 709, 20 S.E. 182 (1894).
According to this Court, this right is founded on "the oldest and deepest hunger of the human heart." State v. Carter, 322 N.C. 709, 717, 370 S.E.2d 553, 558 (1988). Citizens long for "a place where one may dwell in peace and security," a place where one can "keep inviolate from public scrutiny one's innermost aspirations and thoughts, one's most intimate associations and communications, and one's most private activities." Id. DSS has asserted a right to invade that space anytime anyone alleges abuse or neglect, whether the allegation is credible or not, and whether the alleged neglect is serious or utterly trivial. DSS may intrude into the home when there is sufficient evidence to justify it, but not every time a child chases a kitten out the door. The Stumbos had a lawful excuse to oppose this search.
III. Is the Court-Ordered Separation of a Parent and Child for the Purpose of Unrestricted Personal Interrogation of the Child a "Seizure" Within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Assignment of Error No. 3
(R p. 30)
The Stumbos have contended throughout this brief that the proper time frame for assessing whether or not they had a "lawful excuse" for resisting the demands of the social worker were the events as they unfolded at their home on September 9, 1999. However, in this section of the brief, we address DSS's efforts to revise their demands in the courtroom. Assuming, arguendo, that this Court determines that the relevant demand was the one made in the courtroom--we only want to interview the children in private and do not want to enter your home--DSS's position is still contrary to the language of and the precedents arising under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.
DSS has never claimed that the social worker gave any explanation as to where a "private interview" might take place if it were not to be done in the family home. Since � 7B-302(a) requires DSS to "specifically describe the conduct alleged to constitute obstruction or interference"; and � 7B-302(c) places "the burden of proof" on DSS to establish the interference by "clear, cogent, and convincing evidence" any ambiguity as to the nature of the demand for a private interview has to fall on the shoulders of DSS.
It is true that the DSS lawyer speculated that the interview might have been done somewhere outdoors on the Stumbos' property. (T pp. 71-71). This came after the trial court concluded that the Stumbos had violated the law, as it began to struggle with how to word a judicial warrant that would not violate the Constitution. ("He's saying my order is a violation of the Fourth Amendment." (T p. 72)). However, there is not a shred of evidence in the record that such a suggestion was ever made to the Stumbos before the court ordered them not to interfere. Since the statute repeatedly demands proof of the Stumbos' interference or obstruction, part of DSS's burden is to show what the Stumbos understood the demand to be at the scene. We would respectfully urge this Court to hold DSS to its burden of demonstrating that neglect had occurred before ordering the interviews.
However, the Stumbos respectfully suggest that there is no scenario, real or speculative, whereby DSS could avoid the application of the Fourth Amendment. We contend that the removal of these children from the control of their parents--even temporarily--for a coerced interview is a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, DSS would have to prove it had probable cause (the Fourth Amendment standard) to believe that the Stumbos had abused or neglected their children to justify the judicial order mandating the interview.
A. The Temporary Removal of a Child from the Custody of Their Parents is a Seizure Within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
In J.B. v. Washington County, 127 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 1997), a home schooled girl was temporarily removed from the custody of her parents to conduct an interview to determine whether or not the child had been sexually abused. The court held that the Fourth Amendment governed this temporary removal even though it was just for a private interview. "The district court was also correct in holding that the County officials' temporary removal of L.B. from her home is a seizure which implicates L.B.'s own Fourth Amendment rights." 127 F.3d at 926.
A similar reading of the Constitution was reached in Van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep't of Social Services, 911 F.2d 863, 867 (2nd Cir. 1990):
We believe the Constitution assures parents that, in the absence of parental consent, x-rays of their child may not be undertaken for investigative purposes at the behest of state officials unless a judicial officer has determined, upon notice to the parents and an opportunity to be heard, that grounds for such an examination exist and that the administration of the procedure is reasonable under all the circumstances.
Van Emrik, 911 F.2d at 867.
The Stumbos brought three additional cases to the attention of the Court of Appeals regarding their argument on this point: Wallis v. Spencer, 202 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000); Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999); and Robinson v. Via, 821 F.2d 913 (2d Cir. 1987). The Court of Appeals distinguished all of these cases on the basis that the children were removed for "several days" (Wallis), also included a medical exam (Tenenbaum), and the children were taken to "police barracks where they remained for over two hours" (Robinson). Based solely on these supposed factual distinctions, the Court of Appeals concluded:
The cases cited by respondents do not compel the conclusion that a private interview with a child, pursuant to a child abuse or neglect investigation, necessarily constitutes a "seizure" warranting Fourth Amendment protection.
In re Stumbo, 547 S.E.2d at 455.
However, the Court of Appeals used an incorrect standard in distinguishing these cases. The difference is not between "major" and "minor" seizures of the children, as implied by the Court of Appeals' decision. Instead, the correct standard to determine whether or not a seizure has occurred is whether or not in view of all the circumstances, the children would feel free to leave the interview. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980); State v. Gaines, 483 S.E.2d 396, 406 (N.C. 1997).
The standard used in Tenenbaum to determine that the child had been seized was whether the child felt free to leave. The court determined that a child removed from school and brought to a hospital was seized under the Fourth Amendment. The court in Yuan v. Rivera, 48 F.Supp.2d 335, 345 (S.D.N.Y.1999), used precisely the same standard to determine that a child had been seized by government officials. In addition, the court in Kia P v. McIntyre, 2 F.Supp.2d 281 (E.D.N.Y.1998) held to this same standard even in the case of a newborn infant being held in a hospital.
A young child being interrogated by an adult authority figure such as a social worker would assume that he was required to both answer the questions and not leave until the interrogation was completed. This is especially so if the interrogation were to be conducted somewhere other than in the Stumbos' home. The combination of an adult authority figure, an interview which the child is fully aware that the parent does not want but is allowing, and a strange location, would cause any child to believe that he was not free to leave.
Thus, the correct standard that the Court of Appeals should have applied is whether the child would have felt free to leave the interview. The Court of Appeals does not cite a single case for the proposition that removing the children for a "short interview" leads to a different legal result. It is not enough to merely distinguish the facts--especially when no authority to the contrary is cited. Instead, the court should have examined the standard used.
In any event, even if a private interview by a social worker in some cases does not implicate the Fourth Amendment, the noninterference statute required DSS to make a predicate showing of the need for the private interviews before the trial court could lawfully issue the order. See discussion in section I(D), supra. The record is devoid of evidence supporting the need for these interviews and the trial court should be reversed.
B. Parents May Assert the Fourth Amendment Rights of Their Minor Children
Under circumstances like those in this case, "Undoubtedly, parents may assert their children's Fourth Amendment rights on behalf of their children." Hollingsworth v. Hill, 110 F.3d 733, 738 (10th C. 1997). In appealing DSS's demand to interrogate their children, this is precisely what Petitioners are doing. When the parents in Malik v. Arapahoe County Dept. of Social Services, 191 F.3d 1306 (10th C. 1999), asserted their children's Fourth Amendment rights, that court held that the law was clearly defined that "parents may assert their children's Fourth Amendment rights on behalf of their children."
Second, the court in J.B. held that "there may be circumstances in which a parent has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge a seizure involving a minor child." J.B., 127 F.3d at 928. See 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure � 9.2 at 732-33 and nn. 26-28 (1984).
In addition, Wallis makes a key distinction in this matter. The parents' claims of invasion of family privacy (discussed infra) are properly assessed as Fourteenth Amendment claims, and the claims of the children are to be assessed as Fourth Amendment claims. The Wallis court stated that parents could raise the Fourth Amendment claims of their children, and that since "the same legal standard applies in evaluating Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for the removal of children," the court analyzed both claims together. DSS recognizes that one may characterize the Stumbos' right "either as a Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures or as a Fourteenth Amendment privacy right." Petitioner/Appellee's Court of Appeals Brief, p. 8.
Additionally, parents may raise claims based on their Fourteenth Amendment rights to privacy in their family. Parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody and management of their children. Tenenbaum, 593. See also Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); Calabretta v. Floyd, 189 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 1999); Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir.1991); Van Emrik v. Chemung County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 911 F.2d 863, 867 (2d Cir.1990). What DSS wants in this case is more intrusive than the "third party visitation" the Supreme Court struck down in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), and is based on less evidence. There, at least, the trial court found that visitation was in the best interest of the child. Here, there is no showing that could possibly justify custodial interrogation.
The separation of the Stumbo children from their parents for an interview with DSS is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Because DSS does not have probable cause to seize the children, the interview should be prevented. The decision of the Appellate Court should be overruled.
North Carolina law requires the government to demonstrate probable cause that abuse or neglect exists before a judge may issue a noninterference order that authorizes a search or a seizure. There was no showing of probable cause in this case--there was not even reasonable suspicion. The Stumbos had a right to protect their home and a duty to protect their children, even if someone did see Jonie chase a kitten out the door. We urge this Court to uphold the rights and responsibilities of parents by reversing the court below.
Respectfully submitted this _______ day of December, 2001:
Stam, Fordham & Danchi, P.A.
By: _____________________________
Paul Stam, Esq.
Home School Legal Defense Assoc.
By: _____________________________
By: _____________________________
By: _____________________________
Scott W. Somerville, Esq.
Purcellville, Virginia 20134
Attorneys for Respondent-Appellants
I, Paul B. Stam, Attorney for the Respondent-Appellants, hereby certify that I have served a copy of the within Respondent-Appellant's Brief upon the following attorneys, by United States Mail postage prepaid on this the __________ day of December:
John Church, Esq.
Church, Paksoy & Wray
Post Office Box 1908
Shelby, NC 28151
Les Farfour, Esq.
Yelton, Farfour, McCartney & Lutz
Post Office Box 1329
Shelby, NC 28151
Neil A. Riemann
2800 Two Hannover Square
Raleigh, NC 27601
Paul B. Stam, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent-Appellant
| Other Resources


text:
Get DVD Talk Feeds
Following up the release of the After School Specials 1974 – 1976 collection, BCI has slapped four more seventies pre-teen melodramas onto DVD for the first time all available in one handy and easy to use package. What do we get? Four more forty-five minute vignettes of life situations that face every day kids like you and me handled with sap, sadness, and valuable morals. Let's take another walk down memory lane and have a look at the goods…
Francesca, Baby: Francesca (Carol Jones) and Kate (Tara Talboy) are two regular girls with a sadly all too regular problem – their mother is a raging drunk. If the two girls had the support of their father it might be manageable, but sadly rather than deal with the problems at home, daddy dearest chooses to ignore the issue and spend as little time in his abode as possible, instead choosing to travel often for business instead. With this in mind, it's easy to see why the two girls would be a little stressed out by their home life. Bix (Dennis Bowen of Welcome Back Kotter), Francesca's loving boyfriend, encourages her to attend a support group program called Ala-Teen, which specializes in helping kids with alcoholic parents. Francesca isn't too cool with this idea though, as she doesn't want to have to feel embarrassed about her social situation. This all changes though when one night her mom passes out from drinking with a still burning cigarette in her hand. A fire starts, the family is almost burnt to a crisp, and Francesca decides to attend the Ala-Teen meetings after all in hopes of saving her family from the problems they're having once and for all.
Beat The Turtle Drum: Melissa Sue Anderson (instantly recognizable from her role on Little House On The Prairie plays a girl named Kate. She's a happy girl with a good life until one day her younger sister Joss (Katy Kurtzman) falls out of a tree and dies. Kate can't help but feel partially responsible for what happened to her younger sister and not only has to come to terms with this, but also with the fact that her parents always tended to favor Joss just a little bit more then herself. Kate goes on to try and figure out her situation as best she can, talking to friends and cohorts and generally trying to wrap her head around what happened to her and her sister that fateful summer afternoon in the tree. She soon learns that it's not up to her to take responsibility for what she could not have controlled, and the world ends up a better and happier place. Thankfully, Sparky Marcus of The Bad News Bears is on hand to help her out.
The Pinballs: Carlie (Kristy McNichol), Thomas (Sparky Marcus again!) and Harvey (Johnny Doran) are three kids holed up in a foster home. They strike up a good friendship together in spite of their problems - Carlie is a compulsive liar, Thomas' guardian parents have fallen very ill, and Harvey's legs were broken when his dad got drunk and ran him over with the family car. The see themselves as pinballs, in the sense that a pinball in an arcade machine is constantly being bumped and shot from one place to another, much like they've been. Initially they sit around and whine about how their lives are crappy but soon, once they realize that they have each other and that this counts for a whole lot, they turn their lives around and learn to accentuate the positive. I have to admit, as cheesy and corny as this one was, the performances were better than those in the rest of the set and it made me a little misty eyed towards the end. Those gosh darn kids can't get a break in life no matter how hard they try, but they're so loveable that we only want them to find each other and make a go of their miserable lives. Thankfully that's just what they do.
Trouble River: This last movie is a period film, set back in the days of the pioneers. Michael LeClaire plays Dewey. When Dewey's parents decide to relocate the a brand new settlement so that his mother can safely deliver her soon to be born child, Dewey gets stuck staying with his grandmother (played by Nora Denney). Unfortunately for Dewey and his grandmother, there is a gang of rebels descending upon the area and messing things up for the local populace. Dewey decides the best plan of action would be to build himself a raft so that he and granny can truck on down the river and meet up with ma and pa. Granny gives this plan a thumbs up so Dewey builds his raft and off they go down the river. Unfortunately for Dewey, his grandmother is a stubborn old coot without many kind words for the boy despite his hard work and perseverance. Will Dewey make it down the river without killing his grandmother? Will he learn to appreciate his grandmother for her good qualities and for her worldly wisdom or will his intolerance of her old school ways be his downfall?
Seeing as these were shot for television broadcast, it shouldn't surprise anyone to see them presented here as they were originally shown in glorious fullframe. While these transfer aren't going to win any awards, they are watchable. There is some edge enhancement and some print damage and at times the colors look a bit faded and the image looks rather soft, but given that these are thirty year old low budget made for TV movies, they look like decent VHS transfers.
The English Dolby Digital Mono soundtracks are nothing to write home about, but neither are the terrible. There's some mild hiss in one or two scenes and the odd snap, crackle and pop evident on the soundtrack but all of the dialogue is clean and clear and easy to follow and understand. There are no alternate language tracks, subtitles, or closed captioning options available on any of the four films in this set.
There are no extra features on either of the two DVDs in this set (except for a really tiny uninspired stills gallery) but the packaging for this release is so cool that it warrants a mention. The pair of discs are housed inside a keen looking seventies style trapper keeper that faithfully maintains the look and feel of the era that the movies were made in, right down to the fonts used in the type.
While the episode selection on this second set isn't as prime as the first release, there's still plenty of nostalgic fun and bad seventies kids fashions that make these worth checking out for those who appreciate such things. The low MSRP and decent audio and video quality makes up for the lack of extra features and After School Specials – 1976 – 1977 comes recommended.
Ian lives in NYC with his wife where he writes for DVD Talk, runs Rock! Shock! Pop!. He likes NYC a lot, even if it is expensive and loud.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
SANTA ANA – Santa Ana police Thursday urged people to be vigilant in the wake of a reported sexual assault in the parking garage at Westfield's MainPlace Mall.
A woman told police she was getting into her car and a man pushed her inside, brandished a weapon and sexually assaulted her at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. The woman struggled free and ran for help, and the aggressor apparently stole some items before fleeing, police said.
Santa Ana police provided only a vague description of the suspect whose image may have been captured on video. Anyone with more information was asked to call Orange County Crime Stoppers, (855) TIP-OCCS.


text:
MRandall25 wrote:RxBandit66 wrote:pcm wrote:I really want to see Bortuzzo in the playoffs. He looks like a quiet kind of guy, with a monster hidden away inside him. If pairing him with Niskanen on the bottom pair and moving Despres up to the top 4 means they both get to play and Engelland sits, then I'm all for it.
I agree completely. Bylsma is hell bent on playing Engelland and Adams every single game. They are valuable players, but they'd be better for depth. Vitale has more speed and energy than Adams and he wins more draws. Bortuzzo and Despres are both better then Engelland right now, and they will improve ONLY WITH playing time. My point is, players with an upside need to play, or they won't get better. I think a better coach could get more out of guys like Glass, Vitale, and Kennedy, quite frankly. And Bortuzzo and Despres either need to play every night, be traded, or go back to WBS and play every night.
I disagree with your comparison of Vitale to Adams in the context of your post because Adams isn't playing at Vitale's expense. They're on the same line.
I also disagree that they need to play Despres and Bortuzzo every game. They need to play, yes, but not every game, especially in a shortened season like this where you're playing basically every other night. I'm also afraid of throwing out an all-rookie pairing during the playoffs.
Also, a better coach couldn't get more out of Vitale, Kennedy, and Glass because frankly, they don't really have much more to give.
Vitale and Glass are playing exactly like you'd want them to. Glass was brought in because he was very close to the league lead in hits last season, he's a pain to play against. Vitale just has a fire under him, like Max Talbot when he cared. Kennedy... I hope he starts stringing together some nice play about 2 weeks before April 1st.


text:
Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
His wife and kids must like it in Bristol. I can't believe he never jumped to NHL network.
Sam's Drunk Dog wrote:ESPN sucks sans Buccigross
canaan wrote:outstanding
Idoit40fans wrote:Espn should have responded "any plans on getting any viewers?"
He went way down hill when instead of a column he decided to turn his weekly musings into a vlog. I tried to watch the first one, it was annoying, and that's when I quit reading anything hockey related from ESPN
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


text:
- About Us
- Nanotechnology
- News
- Columns
- Products
- Directories
- Nano-Social Network
- Nano Consulting
- My Account
memsOP is a provider of state-of-the art design, modeling, simulation and optimization services for MEMS and microfluidic devices. Our goal is to deliver reliable, optimized and proven MEMS designs for you to use in the development stage.
com. Vidra, jud. Vrancea
Vidra, Vrancea 627415 Romania
|The latest news from around the world, FREE
|Premium Products
Only the news you want to read!
Learn More
Full-service, expert consulting
Learn More


text: Arts digital R&D podcast 3: digital distribution of arts and cultural content by Arts Council England published on 2012-09-04T15:02:20Z The third in the Arts Council's Arts Digital R&D podcast series is now live on the Arts Council's iTunes and SoundCloud channels. The series, hosted by arts and culture broadcaster and journalist John Wilson, explores the innovative use of digital technology in the arts and cultural sector and features discussion and debate from expert studio guests and pioneering case study examples of digital projects. Podcast 3 is all about using digital channels and technologies to distribute arts and cultural content and reach the widest possible audience including new and international audiences. Studio guests include: Hasan Bakshi, Director, creative industries in NESTA's Policy and Research Unit, Paul Bennun, Chair of Artangel and Co-Owner of Somethin' Else Productions and Joanna Ellis from The Literary Platform. They dissect the opportunities and issues involved in sharing content digitally such as licensing and copyright, stragetic partnerships with the likes of YouTube and SkyArts, the new dawn of social literature projects in China and the risks around cannibalising ticket sales with live streams (listen out for some heated debate around this area!) Also we talk to the Royal Ballet about the experience of livestreaming with YouTube, the Berlin Philharmonic on the infrastructure cost and subscription mechanisms for live streaming orchestral concerts, The Sage Gateshead about live streaming concerts into rural venues, SkyArts on their arts partnerships and how they are increasing audience share via TV. Plus licensing insights from legal experts and the UK lead for Creative Commons. Each programme in the series will focus on one of the themes at the core of the new Digital R&D Fund for the Arts: User generated content and social media; Digital distribution and exhibition; Mobile, location and games; Data and archives; Resources; and Education and learning. Find out more about the Digital R&D Fund for the Arts http://www.artsdigitalrnd.org.uk/ We'd like to hear your comments on the podcast and we'd also like to hear from you if you would like to contribute ideas to other programmes in the series. Get in touch on Twitter #artsdigital or email us firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Social Pressure Can Solve The 'Copying' Problem Even Without Copyright
from the reputation-is-a-scarce-good dept
Two recent examples demonstrate this in a very clear manner.
First, MAKE Magazine noted that publishers Klutz/Scholastic were publishing a book on BristleBots, small robots made out of toothbrush heads, and failed to credit the folks who had originally created BristleBots, a group called Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories, as an example of a simple, do-it-yourself, robot making system. It was a pretty blatant copy, from both the name to the design. And, while Klutz/Scholastic at first tried to claim that it was independently created, the similarities between the two made that difficult to believe. This resulted in a public outcry from many different sites, and Klutz/Scholastic finally agreed to back down and will credit the Evil Mad Scientists in all future releases. Notice that this didn't involve any copyright claims or lawsuits -- but pure public pressure, and the potential (serious) damage to Klutz/Scholatic's brand and reputation. Already, the reputation is damaged, and the company will likely be much more careful in the future.
Meanwhile, angry jonny points us to another example. The community over at the excellent website Metafilter discovered that the author of the webcomic User Friendly has been blatantly copying punchlines to his comics from the Metafilter community. It started with a single comparison in today's comic (here's the Metafilter comment and here's today's today's comic using a nearly identical punchline). Then, the Metafilter community started digging into a variety of User Friendly comics from the past few months and found repeated examples of the punchline coming from Metafilter comments -- often days after the comment (all of these examples found in the comments to the original Metafilter post):
make things right after his initial attempt to pass the blame was trashed by most readers. Once again, even without a copyright claim (and I've made clear that I think the idea of copyrighting jokes is silly), it looks like social pressure and the hit to one's (scarce) reputation is often quite enough to punish blatant copyists. So, the idea that you somehow need "copyright" to prevent such copying is increasingly absurd. And, I should point out, that in both of these cases, the "copyists" were a lot more well known than those copied -- which puts to rest a second point copyright defenders often try to make: that if the copyist is big enough, no one will notice. That doesn't seem to be happening in practice.


text:
On the Long Beach branch, approximately 1,000 electrical signal components were replaced, repaired or cleaned as LIRR signal employees worked at 21 different signal instrument locations. MTA officials said the salt-water damaged 3-megawatt substations have had switches, circuit breakers, relays and other critical substation parts fixed.
While additional repair work will continue on the branch, Williams said officials recognize the importance of regular train service as the rebuilding effort continues in the Long Beach community and other hard-hit areas all along the train line.
"Restoring electric train service to Long Beach has been at the top of the LIRR's priority list," she said. "We know customers depend on the LIRR to get back and forth to work and to reach New York City. We're very pleased to be able to restore the service."
Prior to electric restoration, the MTA began offering diesel shuttle service between Long Beach and Lynbrook on Nov. 14. When the diesel offering was announced, Williams said she hoped to have electrical service restores to the Long Beach branch by Christmas.
City Manager Jack Schnirman said he was grateful for any service restoration to the city, adding that the Long Island Railroad was an important part of the lives of many in Long Beach.
"It's so important for our residents to be able to get for work and for, literally, the trains to be able to run on time," he said when diesel service began. "This is a major milestone for us in getting back to normal."
Long Beach customers with a November monthly LIRR ticket who may have been displaced by the storm will still be able to use that ticket on all other branches until Dec. 1, officials said.
A.M. Peak Canceled Long Beach Branch Trains:
The 6:54 a.m. from Long Beach, due Atlantic Terminal at 7:49 a.m., is canceled. Customers will be accommodated by the 7:04 A.M. from Long Beach due Penn Station at 7:57 AM. Customers for Atlantic Terminal must transfer at Jamaica.
The 7:23 a.m. from Long Beach, due Penn Station at 8:22 a.m., is canceled. Customers will be accommodated by the 7:39 a.m. from Long Beach due Penn Station at 8:32 a.m.


text:
Koehn (Könn, Koen, Kuehn, Kien, Kane) family
Koehn (Könn, Koen, Kuehn, Kien, Kane) is an old Prussian Mennonite name first recorded in 1681, which was found in the church records of Danzig, Tragheimerweide, Deutsch-Kazun (Poland), and other places of the Vistula Delta. The Alexanderwohl church record before the migration to Russia also lists the name as one of the early members of the congregation. From Prussia and Poland the name spread to Russia. By the 1950s it was most frequently found in Kansas and Oklahoma among the Mennonites that came from Karolswalde, Poland, many of whom joined the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite. In the 1950s the group had 11 preachers with the name Koehn.
|Cornelius Krahn
|Date Published
Cite This Article
MLA style
Krahn, Cornelius. "Koehn (Könn, Koen, Kuehn, Kien, Kane) family." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1955. Web. 14 Dec 2018. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Koehn_(K%C3%B6nn,_Koen,_Kuehn,_Kien,_Kane)_family&oldid=121340.
APA style
Krahn, Cornelius. (1955). Koehn (Könn, Koen, Kuehn, Kien, Kane) family. Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. Retrieved 14 December 2018, from http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Koehn_(K%C3%B6nn,_Koen,_Kuehn,_Kien,_Kane)_family&oldid=121340.
Adapted by permission of Herald Press, Harrisonburg, Virginia, from Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 211. All rights reserved.
©1996-2018 by the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. All rights reserved.


text:
I attempted to watch this Saturday night, complete rubbish, off after 20 mins.
I think my problem is I compared it to the original film, which is a classic comedy film.
Wouldn't pay for us all to be the same I suppose!
Ghostbusters 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]


text:
Taunton is within a 50-mile radius of the nuclear power plant in Plymouth, which makes the documentary "High Power" of special interest to local residents.
Taunton is within a 50-mile radius of the nuclear power plant in Plymouth, which makes the documentary "High Power" of special interest to local residents.
Because nuclear activists have persistently raised serious concerns about nuclear power and weapons, the nuclear industry has looked elsewhere, such as India, to peddle its wares. Pradeep Indulkarto, an engineer, was sufficiently suspicious of his government's reassurances that he interviewed residents in the town of Tarapur in India, where there is a 50-year-old nuclear plant.
There, he learned first-hand about many residents suffering kidney failure and young children who, inexplicably, have aching hands and feet. Sufficiently alarmed by what he learned, he left his regular work, made a documentary, and is traveling in the country where Westinghouse is located, because that company has persuaded the Indian government to purchase seven new nuclear power stations.
A friend called me recently to say that Pradeep's first presentation in the U.S. near the Indian Point plant, located 35 miles north of New York City, "blew them away" with his film and presentation.
He will present the documentary at the Taunton Public Library, Thursday, Feb. 6 at 1:30 p.m.
Pat McSweeney


text:
ABOUT THIS PRODUCT: Free Gift with $200 Purchase. Poster size 19 x 13 inches. Unframed. Copyright 2014 Party Judaica LLC
It would be our pleasure to ship it to you!
Free shipping and more discounts! Chocolategelt.com is your online source for Poster 19 x 13 inches Dead Sea - Sunrise - FREE GIFT. We serve schools, synagogues, non-profit organizations, as well as individuals. Poster 19 x 13 inches Dead Sea - Sunrise - FREE GIFT sold retail and wholesale, you can see price break depending on quantity you buy on each product page. Our popular products are dreidels, chocolate coins also known as gelt, candles and party gifts for Chanukah. Our selection also includes wide variety of Purim supplies Thank you for shopping at our store!
- Wholesale - Contact/FAQ - Testimonials


text:
Find market research data about digital marketing, startups + SMEs
Presupuesto $10-30 AUD
We need some cool statistics for a presentation we're running that helps support the following ideas -
traditional marketing has bad ROI
marketing is expensive
digital marketing is more widely used than ever before
loyal customers engage with brands who consistently do different things to meet their needs / provide new opportunities to engage
influencer marketing has value on a smaller scale (ie not just accounts with BIG followings, rather accounts with high engagement rates)
brand collaborations or marketing partnerships are popular and they work
Data from our target markets within;
Australia, NZ, US, CANADA, UK
or globally if you can't find area-specific
We'd ideally like one - two pieces of data per each above point. They can be as simple as "Digital marketing is a $156 billion industry globally + growing"
Just reference the CREDIBLE SOURCES you got them from. Credible sources only.
12 freelancers están ofertando el promedio de $82 para este trabajo
PMP certified project manager, MBA in marketing and professional business analyst, market researcher and writer in the field of project management, marketing and branding, HR, operations, real estate, finance, legal Más
Hi There, I am smtechnology, I have read your project brief and can see that you need market research data about digital marketing, startups + SMEs. I am highly qualified to do this market research project. I h Más
Dear Hiring Manager, I am very much interested in your posted job involving these skills. I am expert in market researching, marketing strategy, digital marketing and web researching. I can create a marketing strategy Más
Dear Valued Employer, I can add value to your project, by suggesting new ideas. I am fast and reliable. For further understanding why I am the right firm for your project, kindly check my profile, reviews, rating and Más
Well versed in researching across a vast range of platforms, even if the category is something out of the box for me. I will try my utmost best to provide you for what you are looking for in the best way possible.
Channels Brief Consulting has understood the Project Needs. We have analysed few data based on the overview. As a bonus we are offering a topline based on the Project. If you offer the job we will give details on So Más
hello , I m doing Marketing research in an B2B e-commerce startup and Customer base , customer life cycle , ROI Analysis is part of my task.


text:
Amish boy coming home after 15 months in Boston hospital
Baby Amos is coming home again.
Amos Hertzler, an Amish child born with serious medical problems in Cattaraugus County 2½ years ago, has been receiving specialized treatment for the past 15 months in a Boston, Mass., hospital.
Now, Amos is returning home, family members said.
But, Amos' treatment for a rare esophagus problem did not work out as his family and doctors had hoped.
The Buffalo News has been chronicling his case for more than a year, and many people from the wider community have responded to his story.
Amos' esophagus was not successfully attached in Boston, his family told The News this week.
"They weren't able to do what they wanted to do," said Aaron Hertzler, Amos' father, who spoke to The News by phone from Boston, as the family prepared to bring Amos home.
"It didn't work out quite well. It kept leaking. They had to redo it, and it leaked again."
Aaron Hertzler said his son will come home with a feeding tube, like the one he had before he went to Boston.
Amos will also be on oxygen to breathe, at least for a while, the family said.
Now, the Amish community in Western New York will hold another benefit for Amos, from 6:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday in the Otto Fire Hall.
A full Amish breakfast will be served, and donations will be accepted for Amos' continuing care.
"People have helped us so much," Aaron Hertzler said. "We are very thankful."
In Boston, specialists had been attempting a complicated stretching and attachment procedure to attach Amos' esophagus to his stomach.
Amos was born with Down syndrome and also a rare condition called esophageal atresia, which means he was born with an esophagus that did not connect to his digestive system.
The tow-headed, good-natured child has been unable to eat and speak normally since his birth in the fall of 2010, his parents said.
Breathing has also been difficult for him, and he has often relied on oxygen and a ventilator to survive, they said.
Traditional Amish like the Hertzlers, some of whom reside in outlying areas of the Buffalo region, live without electricity, central heating, running water and other modern conveniences. In the Hertzlers' case, they were using batteries to power some of the devices they needed for Amos' care.
Amos received care at Buffalo's Women & Children's Hospital before his parents decided to take him to Boston to seek further treatment – including the attachment procedure that they were hoping would have allowed him to eat, breathe and speak more normally.
The family said they were happy to be bringing Amos home even though the surgical procedure that would have fixed his atresia did not work as they had hoped.
"For most children, it works out," Aaron Hertzler said of the attachment process.
"For a few children, it doesn't work out."
"He was just one of the ones that didn't work out. It's a complicated thing for anybody."
The Hertzler family said Amos received good care in Boston, and they were happy they took Amos there to attempt the procedure.
According to the Hertzler family, they have paid the major portion of the more than $200,000 hospital bill that Amos has accumulated during his stay in Boston.
But another portion – likely in the range of $13,000 to $20,000, they said – remains unpaid.
That is why the Amish community is holding the breakfast benefit to help pay off the remaining bills, said Hertzler family members.
The breakfast will include pancakes, maple syrup, orange juice and hot cocoa, doughnuts, and sausage, said Noah Hertzler, Aaron Hertzler's older brother and Amos' uncle.
No set ticket price is being asked, but the Amish will take people's donations toward Amos' care, he said. The Hertzler family has established a fund in Amos' name at Cattaraugus County Bank.
Amish handicrafts, including quilts, will also be available at the event.
Overall, the family is focusing on their happiness in welcoming Amos back home after more than a year away from Western New York.
"Maybe this good country air will help him out," said Noah Hertzler.
Noah Hertzler emphasized the gratitude of the Amish toward those who have contributed to Amos' care.
"I want to heartily thank people for the help they gave us so far," Noah Hertzler said.
"The previous benefits did really well.
"We are so grateful to people for everything they have done for us."
Aaron Hertzler, Amos' father, said he and his wife, Katieann, plan to keep Amos at home for a year or two, to nurture him and see how he develops and grows.
Then the family may attempt another procedure to create an attached esophagus for Amos, he said.
"I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Aaron Hertzler said.
Amos' sunny disposition has remained the same, despite his long hospital stay, his father said.
"He's just a very happy little boy," Aaron Hertzler said. "He doesn't cry usually."
"He does a lot of playing, a lot of kicking. He's very active."
The Amos Hertzler fund at Cattaraugus County Bank can be reached at (800) 882-9903.
email: firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
21 June 2007 11:45
Aishwarya Rai wants to continue actingby chernobylnews
The gorgeous newly wed Aishwarya Rai Bachchan says she wants to continue acting and finds it wonderful to be married to her best friend. Ash said she took a very important step in life by deciding to marry Abhishek Bachchan and that it turned out to be the best move.
1 (1 marks)


text:
Need a music cue for your indie drama? This track starts with an uneasy, pensive drone that creates the vibe, while a subtle haunting piano motif stirs the emotion of the piece. The orchestration is intentionally sparse, leaving space for dialogue. Great to use in a confession scene for example. Perfect for film, TV or video games that need to score a scene with characters that are in an intense emotional exchange or reveal.
There are two tracks included; the main cue and then a reprise, which delays the arrival of the droning until introduced by a cinematic low boom that will add weight to the moment. This boom is a great place to reveal a critical piece of information or insert shot of a detail previously held off on.
Melancholy_Piano_Drone_Cue 1:28 Melancholy_Piano_Drone_Cue_Reprise 0:55


text:
Add To Favorites In PHR
Dr. David Stuesse reviews medical content for Healthwise, a nonprofit organization with a mission to help people make better health decisions. Dr. Stuesse is a surgeon specializing in adult and pediatric cardiac surgery and general thoracic surgery in Boise, Idaho.
MD: Medical College of Ohio, Toledo, OH, 1995
Residency in General Surgery: Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 1995–2001
Residency in Cardiothoracic Surgery: Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, 2001–2003
American Board of Surgery
Thoracic Surgery, American Board of Surgery
The final approval of Healthwise content is always made by a clinician with no financial conflicts.
This reviewer reported no financial conflicts.
Author: Healthwise Staff
This information does not replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise, Incorporated, disclaims any warranty or liability for your use of this information. Your use of this information means that you agree to the Terms of Use. Learn how we develop our content.
To learn more about Healthwise, visit Healthwise.org.
© 1995-2018 Healthwise, Incorporated. Healthwise, Healthwise for every health decision, and the Healthwise logo are trademarks of Healthwise, Incorporated.
print close directions


text:
Fourth-grade students at Oakland Elementary School are learning that one little idea, if kindled, can spark a roaring fire for change.
Fourth-grade students at Oakland Elementary School are learning that one little idea, if kindled, can spark a roaring fire for change.
Never one to pass up an opportunity for a quick lesson, teacher Stacey Johnson made an off-hand comment to a student about the plastic-foam cups stacked next to the cafeteria watercooler. She noted that if a plastic-foam cup was around to blow off Christopher Columbus' ship on his way to America, it would still be floating in the ocean today.
"That kind of got everybody thinking," she said.
The idea took hold with Johnson's students and soon spread throughout the fourth grade. They began researching plastic foam and integrating it into various subject area lessons, reading books such as "Miss Fox's Class Goes Green."
After a few weeks, students are now an encyclopedia of knowledge on the potential dangers of plastic-foam packaging. They spout word associations, such as "hazardous waste," "non-biodegradeable," "pollutants" and "litter."
"It really started making us nervous," Johnson said.
As part of an English/language arts lesson, students were encouraged to write a letter to Oakland's principal, Josh Patterson, about the possibility of eliminating plastic foam from the cafeteria. They crafted costumes made of recycled plastic-foam products and went hall to hall, educating other students about their concerns.
"I got my whole family to switch to paper instead," said Hollyann Clevenger, 9.
Patterson said he was pleased to see students working together so enthusiastically. He saw the effort as something students could carry with them well beyond their years at Oakland.
"As they see real life, real world problems come about, they can work together to make a change," Patterson said.
He arranged for students to meet with Noah Rucker, director of food services for Spartanburg District 2. Students presented their information and asked Rucker to consider ordering paper products for the school's cafeteria in the future.
"We want to be partners with the students," Rucker said, noting that it was his first formal request from a student group. "It was well-organized, well-driven. Their points were all well-taken."
Rucker found that the cost difference wasn't significant. Paper cups cost roughly 3 cents more than plastic-foam ones, totaling an increase of about $540 a year. He authorized the switch, and it was implemented this past week.
Plastic-foam lunch trays, used only occasionally if the cafeteria dishwasher is broken, were replaced with paper trays at a cost of roughly $72 a year.
Students said they're proud of what they've accomplished. They now understand the importance of seeing an idea through.
"All you have to do is work hard, and it'll continue to grow," 10-year-old Delenah Calvert said.
"It also builds self-confidence," added Mary Alice Moore, 9. "If one person can make a change in District 2, some people that don't have a lot of self-confidence will know that they can make a change, too."


text:
In "Zipper: Coney Island's Last Wild Ride," documentarian Amy Nicholson puts a human face on the deterioration of the iconic New York amusement park by focusing on the fate of her favorite ride.
Consisting of a rotating boom orbited by free-flipping cars, the 38-year-old Zipper was operated by Eddie Miranda. Ambitious development plans and greedy land-grabbers have been pushing Miranda and many of his fellow carnies out of business, rendering "America's Playground" a wasteland of dilapidated buildings and deserted parking lots — even before Hurricane Sandy ripped through.
Nicholson clearly explains the intricacies of real-estate zoning and the politics behind the plans for the peninsula, interviewing key players from the New York City Council, the Economic Development Corp. and the Department of City Planning as well as Joe Sitt, the smiley billionaire developer who's been snatching up pieces of land with promises to revitalize the place in the vulgar vein of Las Vegas or Orlando, Fla. One can't help but cringe as he rattles off the chain retailers and restaurants interested in moving in.
Meanwhile, Nicholson explores the creation and culture of the Zipper, visiting the Wichita, Kan., factory where it was made and reveling in the banter of the barkers who run the ride. Director of photography Jerry Risius' Super 16mm camera gazes at the towering, shiny, colorful contraption with the same awe as those who, when they ride it, screaming bloody murder.


text:
Books >> Young Adult
Rae Carson
The Crown of Embers
Rae Carson
The Crown of Embers
Release Date: 9/18/2012
LIST PRICE: $17.99 (you save $5.40)
Back cover copy:
She does not know what awaits her at the enemy's gate.
Elisa is a hero.
She led her people to victory over a terrifying, sorcerous army. Her place as the country's ruler should be secure. But it isn't.
Her enemies come at her like ghosts in a dream, from foreign realms and even from within her own court. And her destiny as the chosen one has not yet been fulfilled.
To conquer the power she bears, once and for all, Elisa must follow a trail of long-forgotten—and forbidden—clues, from the deep, hidden catacombs of her own city to the treacherous seas. With her go a one-eyed spy, a traitor, and the man whom—despite everything—she is falling in love with.
If she's lucky, she will return from this journey. But there will be a cost.
Main description:
The second book in Rae Carson's award-winning The Girl of Fire and Thorns fantasy trilogy, perfect for fans of Game of Thrones and Kristin Cashore. Tamora Pierce called the first book, The Girl of Fire and Thorns, "A unique and engrossing read!" A seventeen-year-old princess turned war queen faces sorcery, adventure, untold power, and romance as she fulfills her epic destiny.
In The Girl of Fire and Thorns, Elisa won the war. She saved her kingdom. But no one prepared her for how hard it is to recover from a battle, or to rule a people who still don't trust her. She's still fighting—against assassination attempts and more—and her enemies lie both outside her court and within it. So Elisa will cross the ocean in search of the perilous, uncharted, and mythical source of the Godstone's power. With her go a one-eyed warrior, a loyal friend, an enemy defector, and the man she is falling in love with. A breathtaking, romantic, and dangerous second volume to Rae Carson's ambitious trilogy. Cinda Williams Chima proclaimed about the first book, The Girl of Fire and Thorns, "I LOVED this book!" and Veronica Roth agreed, saying, "Definitely recommended."
Review quote:
"Rae Carson has proved she's a master and has shaken up the YA genre. . . . Nothing is held back."
Review quote:
"There are books you like, and books you love, and then there are the ones that make you go past 'love' and straight into, 'I think I may need to marry this book.' The Crown of Embers was that type of book for me. I adored it."
Review quote:
Praise for The Girl of Fire and Thorns:"Carson's mature writing style, thoughtful storytelling, appealing characters, and surprising twists add up to a page-turner with broad appeal."
Review quote:
Praise for The Girl of Fire and Thorns:"Fans of Tamora Pierce's "Beka Cooper" series will find a kindred spirit in Elisa as she experiences great adversity and heart-wrenching loss."
Review quote:
Praise for The Girl of Fire and Thorns:William C. Morris Award FinalistAndre Norton Award Finalist"Romantic, lush, and thought provoking."


text:
Jul 132006
Congressman John Murtha (another person the rabid right loves to hate) has posted on his website the amount of money we are actually spending on George's war in Iraq. It's pretty astounding.
We are spending $8 billion a month in Iraq. That equates to $2 billion a week, or $267 million a day, or $11 million an hour.
Congressman Murtha goes on to list just some of the things that we could accomplish with this amount of money. Check it out.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


text:
I might have tried posting this in the wrong forum previously, my apologies...
Anyways, I recently bought a Konica Compact 8 camera. Mostly because of it's small size and its resemblance of Single 8 cameras. Yet I am struggling with understanding the meter in the camera. According to this site (http://www.filmkorn.org/super8data/data ... mpact8.htm) the camera only meters up to 100 ISO.
This is troubleome as my main film is tri-x, a 200 ISO S8 film. I believe this would mean I would be overexposing by a full stop. Which is a serious issue. Can anyone here confirm if the camera really only meters to 100 ISO? Or maybe, someone here has shot tri-x in the camera? I believe a few people here have shot with this camera before. I would be using a 1.35v wein cell if it is relevant.
Thanks in advance!
Tri-x in a Konica compact 8?
Technical talk about 8mm, Super8, 9.5mm, 16mm and 35mm ++ motion picture cameras.
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Post Reply
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:12 am
- Real name: Alex D
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:12 am
- Real name: Alex D
Re: Tri-x in a Konica compact 8?
Although no one here gave any information on how this camera would expose tri-x, I went ahead and shot a test roll. The Wein cell 1.35v battery was perfect for this camera and exposed the film fantastically.
Here's some test footage for anyone interested:
Here's some test footage for anyone interested:
Post Reply
2 posts • Page 1 of 1


text:
Get ready, because one night is about to change everything.
One night. That's all it was supposed to be . . .
My name is Maureen, I'm 29 years old and I live with my husband and our beautiful baby girl in The Netherlands. And I'm a Nurse on a Traumatology department at an Academic Hospital. As long as I can remember my life has been filled with books and stories. I grew up with my mom and was just the two of us for a long time. But we were never really just 'with the two of us'. Our house has been filled with books and bookshelves and the books never stopped coming. I grew up reading everything I could put my hands on from 'Mathilda' and 'James and the Giant Peach' by Roald Dahl, till all the Harry Potter books and the Twilight series. So growing up I've have been in all sorts of different worlds. I used books as an escape when things got tough but I also used books to find my peace and somehow grew in the woman I am today.


text:
Commission proposes €6.3 million from Globalisation Fund for former workers of Vestas Group in Denmark
The European Commission has proposed to provide Denmark with €6.3m from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help 611 workers made redundant by the wind turbine manufacturer Vestas Group.
The funds, requested by the Danish authorities, would help to finance a package of measures to assist these workers to find new jobs. The proposal now goes to the European Parliament and the EU's Council of Ministers for approval.
Denmark applied for support from the EGF to help 611 workers made redundant by the Danish Vestas Group. The EGF co-funded measures will be available to all the affected workers, offering them mentoring and coaching, horizontal training in general skills and individualised targeted training packages, help with business start-up, and subsistence and entrepreneurship allowances.
The total estimated cost of the package is €12.7 million, of which the EGF would provide half.