after hearing in District of Columbia

1996S.G., supra, 581 A.2d at 774 . [2] For a description of the condition of the house and the children on September 13, 1992, see the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the trial court after a hearing on September 8, 1993. [3] D.C.Code § 16-2301 reads in pertinent part: (9) The term "neglected child" means a child: * * * * * * (B) who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his or her physical, mental, or emotional health, and the deprivation is not due to the lack of financial means of his or her parent

1996S.G., supra, 581 A.2d at 774 . [2] For a description of the condition of the house and the children on September 13, 1992, see the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the trial court after a hearing on September 8, 1993. [3] D.C.Code § 16-2301 reads in pertinent part: (9) The term "neglected child" means a child: * * * * * * (B) who is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for his or her physical, mental, or emotional health, and the deprivation is not due to the lack of financial means of his or her parent

1993Rather, it was a somewhat incidental sequel to a proceeding which the mother had instituted in the Texas court in an attempt to increase the father’s child support obligation to a level which conformed to new realities, including the birth five years earlier of the parties’ second child. 8 The basic level of child support was “set pursuant to an original order of the court after a hearing and fact-finding.” Hamel, supra, 539 A.2d at 198 .

1993Rather, it was a somewhat incidental sequel to a proceeding which the mother had instituted in the Texas court in an attempt to increase the father’s child support obligation to a level which conformed to new realities, including the birth five years earlier of the parties’ second child. 8 The basic level of child support was “set pursuant to an original order of the court after a hearing and fact-finding.” Hamel, supra, 539 A.2d at 198 .

1988Mrs. Hamel’s support payments are not set pursuant to an original order of the court after hearing and fact-finding, see, e.g., Tennyson v. Tennyson, 381 A.2d 264 (D.C.1977), but pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated and merged without modification into the consent order which includes a judgment of divorce.

1986Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 25 The trial court after hearing the testimony of Mr. Kim, Mrs. Kim, and Detective Spriggs, and, more importantly, after viewing first hand the controversial photograph, rejected appellant’s contention that the picture could in any way have influenced or tainted Mrs. Kim’s subsequent identifications of appellant.

1986Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 25 The trial court after hearing the testimony of Mr. Kim, Mrs. Kim, and Detective Spriggs, and, more importantly, after viewing first hand the controversial photograph, rejected appellant’s contention that the picture could in any way have influenced or tainted Mrs. Kim’s subsequent identifications of appellant.

1985The trial court has vacated that conviction, and ordered a new trial after hearing three days of post-trial testimony, and finding, under the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), that defense counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, and that such performance prejudiced the defense.

1985The trial court has vacated that conviction, and ordered a new trial after hearing three days of post-trial testimony, and finding, under the two-part test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), that defense counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, and that such performance prejudiced the defense.

1977Citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), appellant argues that trial before a judge without a jury does not justify a different result.

1977Citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), appellant argues that trial before a judge without a jury does not justify a different result.