University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name LaShawn A. v. Fenty CW-DC-0001
Docket / Court 1:89-cv-01754-TFH ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Child Welfare
Special Collection Court-ordered receiverships
Attorney Organization ACLU Affiliates (any)
Children's Rights, Inc.
Case Summary
In 1989, Children's Rights and the ACLU filed a federal class action on behalf of children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DHS), and abused and neglected children who are (or should be) known to DHS by virtue of abuse or ... read more >
In 1989, Children's Rights and the ACLU filed a federal class action on behalf of children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DHS), and abused and neglected children who are (or should be) known to DHS by virtue of abuse or neglect. The case asserted violations of Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, due process, the District of Columbia Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act of 1977, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and the District of Columbia Youth Residential Facilities Licensor Act of 1986.

In 1991, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a negotiated remedial order following trial and a liability judgment against the defendant. LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F. Supp. 959 (D.D.C. 1991). Under the consent decree DHS agreed to develop policies and procedures in the areas of protective services; family preservation and preventive services; child placement; case reviews; adoption; staffing (qualifications, training, and caseload standards); resource development (foster homes, adoptive homes, and community based services); contracts with private providers and agencies; and development of a uniform computerized information system.

The decision was appealed and remanded a number of times. The District of Columbia argued that the remedy sought by the plaintiffs could not be provided under federal law; the Court of Appeals instructed the district court to modify the consent order to be based entirely on local law. LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The district court kept the entire content of the order finding that local law provided adequate support for the measures in the decree.

In October 1994, the plaintiffs filed a contempt motion, and the court ordered the creation of a limited receivership to address specific problems. In 1995, the judge found defendants in contempt of court and granted plaintiffs' request for appointment of a general receiver who would run the department. LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 887 F. Supp. 297 (D.D.C. 1995).

The District made another appeal, this time regarding orders of receivership. The Court of Appeals found two orders moot, but held that the district court could not direct the receiver to disregard District law even if it interfered with the receiver's discharge of her responsibilities. LaShawn A. v. Barry, 107 F.3d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

In June 2001, the parties proposed and the court agreed to terminate the receivership and appoint a monitor. In addition, the District agreed to create of a new agency, the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), with cabinet-level control of child welfare matters and consolidated jurisdiction over neglect and abuse cases. The District also agreed to fund additional lawyers to represent the CFSA in Superior Court and a variety of child welfare reforms.

In May 2003, the monitor issued a post-Receivership Implementation Plan, a comprehensive outline for reform negotiated among plaintiffs, CFSA, the District mayor, and the court monitor. The Plan envisioned that by December 2006, defendants would fully comply with the district court's 1991 remedial order.

The monitor continued to assess defendants' progress in 2004 and 2005. At one point during this period, the District failed to maintain an adequate number of attorneys on staff, and this failure apparently led to a severe case backlog for children who had a permanency goal of adoption. CFSA addressed the backlog and was required to ensure that such a backlog not recur.

In December 2006 (the Implementation Plan deadline), despite numerous marked improvements, CFSA had failed to comply fully with several benchmarks. Accordingly, in February 2007, the court approved a jointly-submitted Amended Implementation Plan, which established a new reform deadline of December 2008 and required CFSA to produce annual strategy plans in 2007 and 2008.

Setbacks in the reform effort prompted plaintiffs to file a contempt motion against the District in July 2008. The motion cited chronic problems, including a large backlog of unresolved abuse and neglect investigations, failure to move children into permanent homes on a timely basis, and frequent moves for children in foster care.

In an attempt to resolve these problems, the parties negotiated yet another stipulated order, approved by the Court in October 2008. The stipulated order set forth a number of requirements that CFSA was to meet by January 2009. However, CFSA was unable to meet these requirements, and plaintiffs renewed their contempt motion in January 2009.

In April 2010, the court ruled on plaintiffs' motion, holding the District and its mayor in contempt. LaShawn A. v. Fenty, 701 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2010). The ruling cited the District's failure to implement an annual strategy plan approved by the court-appointed monitor and specifically mentioned the Mayor's failure to consult with the monitor or with plaintiffs' counsel as stipulated in the 2008 order. In addition, the court rejected defendants' argument that under Horne v. Flores, 129 S.Ct. 2579 (2009), the consent decree should be terminated altogether. The court also ordered that more funds be allocated to assist children aging out of the foster care system. Defendants appealed the district court's decision; the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in February 2011. LaShawn A. v. Gray, 412 F. App'x 315 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

In December 2010, the Court approved another Implementation and Exit Plan, superseding the 2007 Amended Implementation Plan. This document set forth which outcomes needed to be maintained, which outcomes still needed to be achieved, and a strategy plan for exiting the consent decree. In accordance with this new plan, CFSA developed strategy plans in each year after 2012 to develop means to achieve compliance and exit. Regular six-month monitoring reports were filed.

The parties submitted a joint motion for an order approving an Exit and Sustainability plan on August 29, 2019, which was approved by the court on October 31, 2019. The plan included 19 outcomes to be achieved, self-regulation and public reporting commitments, and placement array commitments. The court monitor would continue to provide monthly review. The exit plan also detailed that the defendants may independently seek to exit court supervision after they had maintained all outcomes to be achieved for two consecutive six-month reporting periods, by petitioning the court, or by other court order.

As of May 20, 2020, reporting continues, and the case is ongoing.

Ariana Fink - 12/04/2012
Dan Whitman - 11/29/2015
Rachel Carpman - 11/08/2018
Alex Moody - 05/20/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Hire
Monitor/Master
Monitoring
Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention
Receivership
Reporting
Crowding
Crowding / caseload
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Disability
Least restrictive environment
General
Classification / placement
Family abuse and neglect
Family reunification
Foster care (benefits, training)
Juveniles
Placement in shelters
Poverty/homelessness
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Timeliness of case assignment
Wait lists
Youth / Adult separation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (AACWA), 42 U.S.C. § 620 et seq.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.
Defendant(s) District of Columbia
Plaintiff Description Children placed in foster care under the supervision of the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services and children who are or should be known to the Department because they have been abused or neglected.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Affiliates (any)
Children's Rights, Inc.
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1995 - n/a
Filed 06/20/1989
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  LaShawn A. v. Bowser
ACLU of DC
Date: Jun. 1, 2021
By: ACLU District of Columbia
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  LaShawn A. v. Fenty
National Center for Youth Law
Date: Nov. 18, 2016
By: National Center for Youth Law
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  LaShawn A. v. Gray
Children's Rights
Date: Dec. 17, 2010
By: Children's Rights
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Legal Accountability in the Service-Based Welfare State: Lessons from Child Welfare Reform
Date: Summer 2009
By: Kathleen G. Noonan, Charles F. Sabel, William H. Simon (Center for High Impact Philanthropy , Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School Faculty)
Citation: 34 Law & Soc. Inquiry 523 (Summer 2009)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  LaShawn A. v. Dixon: Responding to the Pleas of Children
Date: Spring 1992
By: Stacy Marie Colvin
Citation: 49 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 529 (1992)
[ Detail ]

Court Docket(s)
D.D.C.
04/08/2020
1:89-cv-01754-TFH
CW-DC-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
D.D.C.
06/20/1989
Complaint for Injunctive Relief [ECF# 3]
CW-DC-0001-0001.pdf | Detail
D.D.C.
04/18/1991
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 130] (762 F.Supp. 959)
CW-DC-0001-0040.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
U.S. Court of Appeals
04/16/1993
Opinion (990 F.2d 1319)
CW-DC-0001-0033.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
D.D.C.
11/18/1993
Modified Final Order
CW-DC-0001-0002.pdf | Detail
D.D.C.
05/22/1995
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 366] (887 F.Supp. 297)
CW-DC-0001-0036.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
D.D.C.
08/24/1995
Opinion - General Receivership Order [ECF# 399] (1995 WL 520763)
CW-DC-0001-0037.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
U.S. Court of Appeals
10/31/1995
Opinion (69 F.3d 556)
CW-DC-0001-0032.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
U.S. Court of Appeals
07/09/1996
Opinion (87 F.3d 1389)
CW-DC-0001-0041.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
U.S. Court of Appeals
10/30/1996
Judgment (107 F.3d 923)
CW-DC-0001-0034.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
U.S. Supreme Court
06/09/1997
Opinion (520 U.S. 1264)
CW-DC-0001-0035.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
D.D.C.
02/18/1998
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 699] (1998 WL 35243112)
CW-DC-0001-0039.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
U.S. Court of Appeals
06/02/1998
Opinion (144 F.3d 847)
CW-DC-0001-0038.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Westlaw
D.D.C.
04/05/2000
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 762]
CW-DC-0001-0012.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
04/06/2000
Partial Final Judgment [ECF# 764]
CW-DC-0001-0014.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
03/05/2001
Order [ECF# 778]
CW-DC-0001-0005.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
03/05/2001
Order [ECF# 778]
CW-DC-0001-0013.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
05/22/2001
Consent Order [ECF# 781]
CW-DC-0001-0016.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
08/01/2001
Consent Order [ECF# 784]
CW-DC-0001-0015.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
01/14/2002
Consent Order [ECF# 788]
CW-DC-0001-0017.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
04/19/2002
Memorializing Order [ECF# 791]
CW-DC-0001-0018.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
01/06/2003
Consent Order [ECF# 799]
CW-DC-0001-0019.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
04/09/2003
Implementation Plan [ECF# 974]
CW-DC-0001-0026.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
05/16/2005
Consent Order [ECF# 825]
CW-DC-0001-0020.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
10/21/2005
Consent Order [ECF# 837]
CW-DC-0001-0021.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
01/16/2007
Consent Order [ECF# 860]
CW-DC-0001-0022.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
02/27/2007
Order [ECF# 864]
CW-DC-0001-0024.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
06/11/2008
Consent Order [ECF# 889]
CW-DC-0001-0025.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
07/24/2008
Plaintiff's Motion and Supporting Memorandum for a Finding of Civil Contempt [ECF# 891]
CW-DC-0001-0003.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
10/06/2008
Stipulated Order [ECF# 898]
CW-DC-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
04/05/2010
Order [ECF# 1025]
CW-DC-0001-0010.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
04/05/2010
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 1026] (701 F.Supp.2d 84)
CW-DC-0001-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
04/05/2010
Notice of Appeal [ECF# 1027]
CW-DC-0001-0023.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
09/27/2010
Order [ECF# 1061]
CW-DC-0001-0027.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
09/28/2010
Order [ECF# 1061]
CW-DC-0001-0009.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
10/28/2010
Attorney's Fees Settlement Agreement
CW-DC-0001-0011.pdf | Detail
D.D.C.
12/17/2010
Order [Implementation and Exit Plan] [ECF# 1073]
CW-DC-0001-0028.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
12/17/2010
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 1075]
CW-DC-0001-0029.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
02/28/2011
Judgment [Ct. of App. ECF# 1082] (412 Fed.Appx. 315)
CW-DC-0001-0008.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
05/24/2011
Consent Motion for Adoption of Order Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs [ECF# 1084]
CW-DC-0001-0030.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
U.S. Court of Appeals
05/25/2011
Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 1089]
CW-DC-0001-0031.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
08/26/2011
Order [ECF# 1091] (2011 WL 3904130)
CW-DC-0001-0007.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
06/25/2014
Supplemental Report on Performance on Select Exit Standards during January - March 2014 [ECF# 1123]
CW-DC-0001-0042.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
12/30/2014
Supplemental Report on Performance on Select Exit Standards during July - October 2014 [ECF# 1135]
CW-DC-0001-0043.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
05/21/2015
Progress Report for the Period July 1 - December 31, 2014 [ECF# 1142]
CW-DC-0001-0044.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
D.D.C.
08/29/2019
Joint Motion for Entry of Order Approving Exit and Sustainability Plan [ECF# 1201]
CW-DC-0001-0045.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Garland, Merrick B. (D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0008
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0008
Henderson, Karen LeCraft (D.S.C., D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0034 | CW-DC-0001-0041
Hogan, Thomas Francis (FISC, D.D.C.) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0005 | CW-DC-0001-0006 | CW-DC-0001-0009 | CW-DC-0001-0010 | CW-DC-0001-0012 | CW-DC-0001-0013 | CW-DC-0001-0015 | CW-DC-0001-0016 | CW-DC-0001-0017 | CW-DC-0001-0018 | CW-DC-0001-0019 | CW-DC-0001-0020 | CW-DC-0001-0021 | CW-DC-0001-0022 | CW-DC-0001-0024 | CW-DC-0001-0025 | CW-DC-0001-0026 | CW-DC-0001-0027 | CW-DC-0001-0028 | CW-DC-0001-0036 | CW-DC-0001-0037 | CW-DC-0001-0039 | CW-DC-0001-0040 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Mikva, Abner Joseph (D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0033
Randolph, Arthur Raymond (D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0032 | CW-DC-0001-0034 | CW-DC-0001-0041
Silberman, Laurence Hirsch (FISCR, D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0038 | CW-DC-0001-0041
Williams, Stephen Fain (D.C. Circuit) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0008 | CW-DC-0001-0032 | CW-DC-0001-0034 | CW-DC-0001-0041
Monitors/Masters Meltzer, Judith (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0042 | CW-DC-0001-0043
Plaintiff's Lawyers Almonrode, Patrick S. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Bartosz, Michael [Sara Michelle] K (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Dembrow, Adam C. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Dunn, Christopher (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0001 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Frei-Pearson, Jeremiah (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Jaffe, Sarah (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0045 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Levine, Craig (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Lowry, Marcia Robinson (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0001 | CW-DC-0001-0003 | CW-DC-0001-0004 | CW-DC-0001-0011 | CW-DC-0001-0045 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Morrow, Kara (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Pitchal, Erik S. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Robinson-Glasser, Sara (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Spitzer, Arthur (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0001 | CW-DC-0001-0003 | CW-DC-0001-0004 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Symonds, Elizabeth (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0001 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Thompson, Eric E. (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0011
Wood, Kathryn Anne (New York) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Adams, Eugene A. III (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Alexander, Robin C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Allen, Natalie Frazier (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Amarillas, Fernando (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0045
Amato, Maria-Claudia T. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Blackburne-Rigsby, Anna Elizabeth (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Burke, Beverly Jean (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Efros, Ellen A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0023 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Jackson, Toni Michelle (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0045
Lerner, Jacques Phillip (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Long, Victor E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Lopes, Grace Michele (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Love, Richard Stuart (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0004 | CW-DC-0001-0023 | CW-DC-0001-0030 | CW-DC-0001-9000
McGraw, Esther Young (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Montee, Amanda (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Nickles, Peter J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0004 | CW-DC-0001-0023 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Pittman, Lucy E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0023 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Prager, Lutz Alexander (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0011
Racine, Karl A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0045
Reischel, Charles L. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0011
Rigsby, Robert (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0011
Robinson, Arlene L. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Saindon, Andrew J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-0045 | CW-DC-0001-9000
Smith, Walter A Jr. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Utiger, Robert C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Ziegler, Cheryl Lynn (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Zielinski, Michael Edward (California) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Other Lawyers Hajjar, Anton (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Hartnett, F. Douglas (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Jones, Michael D. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Jones, Marcia G. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Kass, Colin Ryle (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Keller, Kimberlee (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Levita, Laurel L. (Maryland) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Mirel, Lawrence Hillel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Pearson, Charles Quentin (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Ruiz-Salomon, Pablo (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Shultz, Catherine M. (Maryland) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Smith, Carol A. (Maryland) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000
Spindel, Marla P (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
CW-DC-0001-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -