Fair Hearing Summary

CM picked client up from her niece’s home at 7:00am to meeting with her attorney, Rosemary Traub, at the courthouse at 7:30am for her schedule hearing 8:30am regarding her request for a protection order against her ex-husband. Ms. Traub also brought along with her, Gail Starr, from SANE to testify as an expert witness to discuss bruising as the police officer testified in the last hearing that he did not see any bruising on our client when he responded to the call. Additionally, Ms. Traub also subpoenaed the EMT that responded to our client on the day of the DV incident. The hearing started late at about 9:00am after the interpreter line was set up. The hearing officer first discussed the absence of the police officer as he was supposed to

This case was last before the court on 1/4/2017 for a report to the court. The hearing was rescheduled until 2/6/2017, as all the attorneys were not present. At that time, temporary custody of Issac Johnson remained with the Department. The case was continued until 2/6/2017 for a status report.

Procedural History: The federal court refused to hear the case because it is in question whether or not

This appeal is raised in the context of the trial court granting CHH’s motion for judgment. A motion for judgment is governed by Maryland Rule 2-519 which provides:

The chairperson officially opened the session by reading the Preamble. The Preamble is a brief overview of what Alcoholics Anonymous stands for in that it is a safe place for those in recovery to share, find strength and hope, and help with complete abstinence from alcohol. At that time the chairperson asked if there were any newcomers to which I introduced myself as an ISU graduate student observing for class. The chairperson allowed the members of the room introduce themselves and provide their clean dates.

The meeting agenda included the topics that were going to be discussed which made the meeting more structured. To start off the meeting, they called the meeting, announced the time and date, took roll call, and then everyone stood up and said the pledge of allegiance. There was a Personal Appearance from Jim Haddock and he first had to state his full name and address. He thanked the city council board for the bills, as he

Father finally alleges that the circuit court erred when it awarded Mother $20,000 in attorney’s fees. Mother asserts that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees in this case was reasonable and that there is no support for the argument that the trial judge abused its discretion when making its attorney’s fee award. We agree with Mother.

Mathews v. Eldridge was a landmark Supreme Court case. George Eldridge was the defendant in this case. Mathews, the Secretary of HEW, was appealed. He was a recipient of Social Security disability benefits, in which he started receiving in June of 1968. Four years later in March of 1972, the state agency in charge of monitoring Eldridge’s medical condition sent him a questionnaire to fill out. Eldridge filled out the questionnaire and supplied the agency with reports from his doctor and psychiatric consultant. After reviewing the questionnaire the agency informed Mr. Eldridge that he will no longer be eligible to receive his disability benefits, based on his answers to the questionnaire and the reports from his doctor and psychiatric consultant.

The meeting had preplanned agendas concerning the planning staff and services to citizens. The types of services are residential, commercial, and industrial land use development ordinances. The meeting opened with a prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, call to order, determination of a quorum, to ensure all board members are present and adoption of minutes. The Chairman, Mr. Keith Williams, was the moderator and he was very polite and efficient, by giving citizens and local official the opportunity to speak. The atmosphere was very static, because there were great number of residents there awaiting their chance to speak about a certain zoning agenda (City of Gulfport,

At the administrative hearing, the Department’s evidence was entered into the hearing record without objection. The Department’s Representative objected to the Appellant’s Exhibit A-1 being entered into the hearing record as evidence because the Department asked the Appellant if she had additional medical documentation that had not previously been provided and the Appellant indicated that she did not. The Appellant agreed that she did tell the Department’s Representative that she had no other medical information because she “did not understand the question”. The ALJ finds that the Department’s objection to Exhibit A-1 is overruled. Since Exhibit A-1 is verification from a credible source and verifies the Appellant’s

. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric

The president introduced us to everyone including the members of the phone conference. They all went around and introduced their selves and spoke a little about their title and what they do. I introduced myself and they asked a few questions about my nursing interests and when I would be graduating. They reminisced about when they graduated and took the NCLEX, and spoke about how the field of nursing has so many opportunities. They also spoke about how a lot of people have the wrong idea about what long term care is, and emphasized that long term care encompasses many distinct levels of acuity and facility types. During the meeting, they were informative and explained a lot so that we knew what they were talking about as far as quality improvement initiatives and revisions to certain

Father contends that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to modify its child-support order. Mother avers, however, that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by failing to modify its child-support order. We agree with Mother.

In an effort to bridge the gap between the community and the courtroom, Pastor Ray Hendricks hosted a town hall meeting with The Honorable Darlene Byrne. Kenneth Thompson from DFPS facilitated discussion and The Honorable Judge Davis and Judge Martinez-Jones attended as a part of the audience discussion.

On the issue of timeliness, the PA IEB Representative RH testified that the Appellant was issued a notice on July 20, 2017, again on August 16, 2017 based on the Appellant’s request, and then again on September 13, 2017, based upon the Appellant’s request. The PA IEB’s position is that the appeal is untimely filed as the notice was issued three times before receiving the appeal on September 25, 2017.