winnable, was settled favorably for the plaintiffs (the terms of the settlement are confidential). This case is significant to me because my pretrial discovery work and legal arguments were critical factors leading to the settlement (which occurred after I left the firm).

Elaine McKoy, et. al. v. Don W. Wilson, Archivist of the U.S. National

Archives and Records Administration –91-0702

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Judge Louis Oberdorfer

Counsel for Defendant

Jeffrey T. Sprung

Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia

555 4th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

(H) (206) 224-9329

Theresa Conway v. Homer Betts – I presided over and adjudicated this protracted child support case in 1996. Both parties were represented by counsel. I conducted a full evidentiary hearing and established a permanent prospective child support order. I directed the parties to file post-hearing motions on the issue of retroactive support and attorney's fees. In the post-hearing motions, the petitioner, the mother of the child, sought to determine whether she was entitled to three years of retroactive child support and attorney fees from the respondent, the child's father.

This case is significant because child support is a crucial issue that can vitally impact a child's quality of life. In this case, I determined from the evidence that the minor child was only receiving 40% of the child support he was entitled to receive from his father. As a result, the child's standard of living was drastically below that of his father. This is contrary to the letter and intent of District of Columbia child support law. Furthermore, the respondent demonstrated a pattern of evading and prolonging payment of child support. In addition, despite the emotional and volatile nature of the parties in this case, I established a tone of civility and respect, which was maintained throughout the proceeding.

This case is also significant in a broader context because it is representative of a significant number of protracted, contested child support cases for which I am responsible for adjudicating. In many of these protracted child support cases the parties are not represented by counsel. Where the parties are unrepresented, I have the additional responsibility of explaining the process, the law and the basis for my factual determinations so that the parties can understand and effectively participate in the proceedings and represent their interests. Although the parties had the right to appeal this decision, no appeal was sought.

Gloria Romero v. Jose Romero-I presided over this case in 1996. Both parties were represented by counsel and I conducted a full evidentiary hearing. This case required the services of a Spanish language interpreter. I determined that the applicable law, the history of domestic violence, and the other facts supported a child support award greater than the statutory guideline amount. There was a well documented history of domestic violence by the respondent against the petitioner and a civil protection order had previously been entered against the respondent. The matter came before me for a hearing to determine pendente lite |(temporary) child support.

The civil protection order in the related domestic violence case ordered the respondent to allow the petitioner and the two minor children to occupy the two-bedroom rent-free. apartment which was part of the respondent's compensation from the building management company where he was employed. The value of the rent-free apartment was $613.00 per month. The amount exceeded the calculated guideline amount of child support based on the respondent's income. I determined that it would be unjust to reduce the child support and order the petitioner and the two minor children to vacate this apartment, particularly since the respondent's violence toward the petitioner and children caused their need for child support. Under District of Columbia Law, the goal of a child support award is to secure the best interests of the child. The guideline amount of child support is based on the formula promulgated by the City Council. The guideline child support amount may be disregarded where the needs of the minor children are exceptional and require more than average expenditures. I reasoned that the domestic violence that the children had witnessed being perpetrated by respondent against their mother, traumatized the children and created an exceptional need for the children. In order to escape the circumstances created by the

domestic violence, the children needed a place to live in addition to cash child support payments. I ordered the respondent to allow the children and the petitioner to stay in the apartment and I also ordered him to make an additional cash payment for child support. My order also provided that after a reasonable period of time when the petitioner was able to secure another apartment, the child support payment would be reduced to the guideline amount.

This case is significant for several reasons. First, it involved the use of a Spanish language interpreter. Many of the cases that I handle involve the use of a foreign language or hearing impaired interpreters. In cases where an interpreter is used, I believe that it is my

responsibility to ensure that the parties understand the nature of the proceedings as well as the literal translation of the proceedings.

Secondly, this case is significant because it illustrates that in a domestic violence case, child. support is vitally important to a child's well-being and standard of living. It is in the best interest of the children to receive the child support they are entitled to so that the custodial parent is not forced to stay in a violent relationship in order to support the children.

Finally, this case is significant in a broader context because it is representative of a larger and rapidly expanding number of cases which I am responsible for adjudicating. Without considering the unique impact of domestic violence on the children the outcome of this case could have been different. This is one of the concerns the Court sought to address when the cutting-edge Domestic Violence Unit was created in 1996. Although the parties had the right to appeal my decision in this case, no appeal was sought. In subsequent contested divorce proceedings before a Superior Court Judge, my findings and order on the issue of child support were incorporated into the Judge's final order.

While assigned to the Domestic Violence Unit from January 1999 to September 1999 (I was also previously assigned to the Unit for periods in 1997 and 1998), I adjudicated numerous domestic violence cases involving issues of child support. As a result of my work in this area, I was invited to the 1996, 1997, and 1999 Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA) annual training conferences to conduct workshops on the issue of child support in domestic violence cases.

IF-2909-94 (see attached order)

Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Family Division

Domestic Relations Branch

Counsel for Petitioner:

Suzanne Jackson, Esq.

American University

Thomas L. Schmitz v. Robert G. Webster - In November 1996, I presided over this Small Claims case which involved a landlord-tenant dispute over the conditions of a rental unit. Only the landlord, the defendant in this case, was represented by counsel. At the trial, I credited the testimony of the plaintiff, the tenant, that he had made numerous requests to the defendant, to make certain repairs to the apartment prior to the lease date. The repairs were not satisfactorily completed and the plaintiff filed suit to void the lease and recover his security deposit and first month's rent. The defendant landlord argued that satisfactory repairs had been made. I applied the reasonable person standard and concluded that the repairs were not satisfactory and the lease was void. I also reasoned that the implied warranty of habitability applied to the lease agreement and could appropriately be measured by the standards of the Housing Code Regulations for the District of Columbia. I awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $1,441.41 for the security deposit, first month's rent and phone installation, less the reasonable value of the plaintiff's possession of the unit for four days.

Counsel for the defendant filed a Motion for Review of my decision, as permitted by Superior Court Rules. As grounds for the appeal, counsel for the defendant argued, among other things, that I incorrectly relied on the District of Columbia Housing Code Regulations. Judge Brook Hedge denied the defendant's Motion for Review and affirmed my decision stating in her Order, "the Commissioner issued thorough and detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law." (Judge Hedge's Order is attached.) This case is significant because it is representative of a number of cases that I have handled on the Small Claims calendar. The defendant exercised his right to request review of my decision, but my decision was affirmed.

19. Describe the most significant legal activities you have pursued, including significant litigation which did not proceed to trial or legal matters that did not involve litigation. Describe the nature of your participation in each instance described, but you may omit any information protected by the attorney-client privilege (unless the privilege has been waived).

Domestic Violence Coordinating Council - The DVCC was formally chaired by Judge Rufus King, and is currently chaired by Judge Lee Satterfield. My work on the DVCC contributed to the formation of the Court's Domestic Violence Unit. I worked closely with the consultant hired by the Court on the issue of combining Corporation Counsel's resources with those of the District Office of Paternity and Child Support Enforcement to allow victims of domestic violence to initiate a permanent child support case at the same time the domestic violence case is initiated. In addition to my work on the formation of the Domestic Violence Unit, I worked with the Teen Dating Violence Committee and the Community Outreach and Education Committee of the DVCC. For the past four years, I have conducted Teen Dating Violence Workshops with students involved in the Georgetown University Law School Street Law Program, at the School Without Walls High School, Eastern High School and the Luke Moore Academy. This year I was appointed Chair of the Community Outreach and Education Committee of the DVCC and I have initiated quarterly community forums on domestic violence.

Neglect Task Force - Judge George Mitchell and Judge Zinora Mitchell-Rankin chaired this Task Force. In December 1995, shortly after my appointment as a Commissioner, the Chief Judge created a special Neglect Task Force and appointed me as one of the members. The Task Force was formulated to make recommendations for monitoring children in the neglect system who have been removed from their homes and placed in the unlicensed "foster" homes of relatives. The Chief Judge formulated the Task Force in the aftermath of the tragic case of two young girls who were taken from the custody of their mothers and sexually abused by their step-grandfather. Previously, the homes of relatives were not licensed or monitored in the same way as foster homes.

I formulated a checklist for the Judge and Commissioners to use at neglect proceedings when placement issues are decided. The checklist was developed to serve as a guide to ensure that appropriate information is obtained from the parties as soon as possible to assist the Judge in making decisions to place children in the temporary care of other relatives. The checklist was included in the final recommendations of the Task Force and circulated to Judges and Commissioners.

Pre-Trial Mental Examination Committee - Judge Ann Keary chairs this committee. I have been a member of this committee since 1998. The committee is currently proposing changes to the policies and procedures that govern pre-trial mental examinations for defendants with mental competency issues.

Intra-Family Rules Committee - Judge Lee Satterfield chairs this Committee. This Committee has the responsibility for proposing changes to the Superior Court Intra-Family Rules so that the Rules are reflective of the changes resulting from the creation of the new Domestic Violence Unit. I have been a member of this committee since January 1999.