show cause hearing in District of Columbia

2011His ineffectiveness claim was based on his counsel's failure (1) to make arrangements for him to participate in the proceedings (he was still incarcerated at the time of the show-cause hearing), and (2) "to call any witnesses to support his preference that members of his family provide care for D.T." Id. at 194 .

2011His ineffectiveness claim was based on his counsel’s failure (1) to make arrangements for him to participate in the proceedings (he was still incarcerated at the time of the show-cause hearing), and (2) “to call any witnesses to support his preference that members of his family provide care for D.T.” Id. at 194 .

2010In In re Antj.P., 812 A.2d 965, 971 (D.C.2002), we held that the trial court did not err in drawing an adverse inference regarding a birth father’s relationship with his son where the father appeared at a hearing designed to determine whether his parental rights should be terminated, but failed to testily.

2010In In re Antj.P., 812 A.2d 965, 971 (D.C.2002), we held that the trial court did not err in drawing an adverse inference regarding a birth father's relationship with his son where the father appeared at a hearing designed to determine whether his parental rights should be terminated, but failed to testify.

2007See also In re J.G., supra, 831 A.2d at 1001 ("Not-withstanding the presumption in favor of the birth parent, however, we have repeatedly held that the parent's rights may and must be overridden when such a drastic measure is necessary in order to protect the best interests of the child."). [10] Perhaps, if our guiding legal principle on appeal were "the best interests of the parents," appellants' plea would indeed be reasonable. [11] Although D.P. argues that the court abused its discretion by not weighing heavily D.P.'s drug free period, his argument lacks merit.

2007See also In re J.G., supra, 831 A.2d at 1001 ("Not-withstanding the presumption in favor of the birth parent, however, we have repeatedly held that the parent's rights may and must be overridden when such a drastic measure is necessary in order to protect the best interests of the child."). [10] Perhaps, if our guiding legal principle on appeal were "the best interests of the parents," appellants' plea would indeed be reasonable. [11] Although D.P. argues that the court abused its discretion by not weighing heavily D.P.'s drug free period, his argument lacks merit.

2004Initially, we note that this argument is not properly before us because R.W. failed to raise it at the trial court level. [3] See In re J.W., 806 A.2d 1232 , 1235 (D.C.2002) (citing Williams v. Gerstenfeld, 514 A.2d 1172, 1177 (D.C. 1986)).

2004Initially, we note that this argument is not properly before us because R.W. failed to raise it at the trial court level. 3 See In re J.W., 806 A.2d 1232, 1235 (D.C.2002) (citing Williams v. Gerstenfeld, 514 A.2d 1172, 1177 (D.C.1986)).

2004Initially, we note that this argument is not properly before us because R.W. failed to raise it at the trial court level. [3] See In re J.W., 806 A.2d 1232 , 1235 (D.C.2002) (citing Williams v. Gerstenfeld, 514 A.2d 1172, 1177 (D.C. 1986)).

2004Initially, we note that this argument is not properly before us because R.W. failed to raise it at the trial court level. 3 See In re J.W., 806 A.2d 1232, 1235 (D.C.2002) (citing Williams v. Gerstenfeld, 514 A.2d 1172, 1177 (D.C.1986)).

2012The government responds that appellant’s due process rights were not violated because the government had the same legal theory, albeit under slightly different factual scenarios, at both proceedings. “[T]he decision to revoke probation is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and typically involves a two step analysis: (1) a retrospective factual question whether the probationer has violated a condition of probation, and (2) a discretionary determination as to whether violation of a condition warrants revocation.” Brown v. United States, 900 A.2d 184, 188 (D.C.2006).

2004See, e.g., In re J.G., Jr., 831 A.2d at 999 n. 15; In re A.R. 679 A.2d 470, 473 (D.C.1996).

2004Id. at 478 . [9] Indeed, the statute provides that "[e]vidence of continued drug-activity shall be given great weight." D.C.Code § 16-2353(b)(5). [10] In her brief and during oral argument, R.W. suggested (based on H.B.'s testimony at the show cause hearing) that H.B. was under the "misconception" that adoption was the only permanency option available and that H.B. would have been satisfied with legal guardianship had she known about this option.

1999“In general, a judge may take judicial notice of the contents of court records.” S.S. v. D.M., supra, 597 A.2d at 880 (citing Mannan v. District of Columbia Board of Medicine, 558 A.2d 329, 338 (D.C.1989)).

1995No separate evidentiary hearing was held on the other alleged violations of the voluntary agreement, since the Ohs had previously admitted one violation and agreed to accept a five-day suspension of their license. [3] The Capitol Hill Group Ministry is an association of about twenty churches of various denominations in the Capitol Hill area, which includes the area immediately adjacent to Lincoln Park. [4] Under 23 DCMR § 1502 (1988), the Board was required to investigate whether such a violation had occurred, and to seek an opinion from the Office of the Corporation Counsel as to whether ther

1995We reject the Board's argument that petitioners waived this point by failing to object when the Board ruled, at the outset of the hearing, that it would not consider Trant’s violation of the voluntary agreement at the hearing on the renewal application, but would address it in "a separate proceeding.” All that the law requires is "that all claims be first raised at the agency level....” Hughes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 498 A.2d 567, 570 (D.C.1985).

1987Williams v. Williams, 495 A.2d 754, 755 (D.C.1985) (parties impliedly consented to try the issue of divorce); Moore v. Moore, 391 A.2d 762, 768 (D.C.1978) (“the clearest indications of a party’s implied consent to try an issue lie in the failure to object to evidence ... which is clearly appropriate to the new issue but not to other matters specified in the pleadings.”); cf. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 15(b). 13 Since the record demonstrates Wilkes was on notice that title to the accounts would be decided at the show cause hearing, his contention that he was denied an opportunity to present his full case

1987Williams v. Williams, 495 A.2d 754, 755 (D.C.1985) (parties impliedly consented to try the issue of divorce); Moore v. Moore, 391 A.2d 762, 768 (D.C.1978) ("the clearest indications of a party's implied consent to try an issue lie in the failure to object to evidence . . . which is clearly appropriate to the new issue but not to other matters specified in the pleadings."); cf. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 15(b). [13] Since the record demonstrates Wilkes was on notice that title to the accounts would be decided at the show cause hearing, his contention that he was denied an opportunity to present his full c

1987Williams v. Williams, 495 A.2d 754, 755 (D.C.1985) (parties impliedly consented to try the issue of divorce); Moore v. Moore, 391 A.2d 762, 768 (D.C.1978) (“the clearest indications of a party’s implied consent to try an issue lie in the failure to object to evidence ... which is clearly appropriate to the new issue but not to other matters specified in the pleadings.”); cf. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 15(b). 13 Since the record demonstrates Wilkes was on notice that title to the accounts would be decided at the show cause hearing, his contention that he was denied an opportunity to present his full case

1987Williams v. Williams, 495 A.2d 754, 755 (D.C.1985) (parties impliedly consented to try the issue of divorce); Moore v. Moore, 391 A.2d 762, 768 (D.C.1978) ("the clearest indications of a party's implied consent to try an issue lie in the failure to object to evidence . . . which is clearly appropriate to the new issue but not to other matters specified in the pleadings."); cf. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 15(b). [13] Since the record demonstrates Wilkes was on notice that title to the accounts would be decided at the show cause hearing, his contention that he was denied an opportunity to present his full c