About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

8 ABA Juv. & Child Welfare L. Rep. 1 (1989-1990)

handle is hein.journals/chilawpt8 and id is 1 raw text is: ABA JUENIL &CHILD WELFARE J.w(Rkeporter VOL. 8, No. 1 March 1989 CHILD WELFARE Abuse, Appeal Dismissal Of Abuse Petition Due To In- sufficient Evidence Is Not A Final Dispositional Order For The Purpose Of An Appeal. In re Jessica J., --N.H.-, 546 A.2d 1056 (1988). An abuse petition was filed regarding a five- year-old child. At the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition due to the state's failure to sus- tain its burden of proof. The state sought to appeal the matter. The court ruled, however, that there could be no such appeal because the dismissal was not a final dispositional prder. The state again appealed. / The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed. Under the state's abuse/neglect statutory scheme, there could be only two possible results in an adjudicatory hearing; the petition would be dismissed if the evidence was deficient, or the petition would be sustained. If sustained, the court would order the child welfare agency to submit a social report prior to the final disposition of the case. The court would then be required to hold a hearing on final disposi- tion within 30 days after a finding of abuse or neglect (emphasis in original). Any appeal would lie within 30 days of the entry ofthe final dispositional order. In light of this statutory language, the court held that a finding of abuse or neglect was the pre- requisite to an entry of a final dispositional order. The state would therefore not be allowed to appeal the dismissal of the abuse petition. On December 19, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc in Del A. v. Edwards, 856 F. 2d 1148, 7 ABA Juv. & Ch. We'f L. Rptr. 168, reh'g granted, 862 F. 2d 1107. * Abuse, Confrontation Defendants' Right To Face-To-Face Confrontation Of Child Abuse Victims Was Not Violated By Video Deposition Testimony In Light Of Particularized Findings That Live Testimony At Trial Would Traumatize Children. State v. Tafoya, No. 9004 (N.M. App. Sept. 22, 1988) (earlier decision reported at 6 ABA Juv. & Ch. Wel'f L. Rptr. 26 (1988). and Glendering v. State, No. 70,346 (Fla. Dec. 1, 1988). The defendants in each of these cases had been convicted of various sex crimes perpetrated against children. Part of the states' proof consisted of the victims' videotaped deposition testimony. The statutory prerequisites for the taking of such testimony were findings that the individual child would be unable to testify before the court without suffering some degree of mental or emotional harm. The trial courts in each case made the appropriate findings under their states' statutes, and the videotaped depositions were taken. While the defendants were not allowed to view each witness on a face-to-face basis during the deposition, they were able to see and hear the testimony and to communicate with their attorney via a two way mirror in one case and via an audio- visual link-up in the other. The defendants' appeals were grounded upon confrontation clause concerns. During this period of time, the United States Supreme Court addressed the question of face-to-face confrontation in child abuse cases in its decision in Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 00, 7 ABA Juv. & Ch. Wel'f L. Rptr. 76 (1988). The New Mexico Court of Appeals and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the convic- tions, finding that the opinion in Coy did not mandate a reversal. The.courts recognized that Coy stood for the proposition that face- to-face confrontation was guaranteed by the sixth amendment. However, the statute ad- dressed in Coy created a presumption that a child abuse victim would be traumatized by having to testify in the presence of the defendant at trial. In Florida and New Mexico, no such statutory presumption existed. The courts viewed Coy as allowing for possible exceptions to the face-to-face rule in cases such as these, where particularized findings of likely trauma were made by the trial court prior to the authorization of the video deposition's taking. In light of these particularized findings, the courts were con- vinced thrt the harm to the victims out- weighed the defendants' right to face-to-face confrontation. Abuse, Evidence Incest Statute Did Not Prohibit Sexual Contact Between Stepgrandfather And Stepgranddaughter. and Hearsay Evidence Regarding Sexual Abuse Was Improperly Admitted. Glisson v. State, -Ga. App.-, 372 S.E.2d 462 (1988). A stepgrandfather was accused of com- mitting incest with his minor stepgrand- daughter. At trial, the child refused to testify continued on next page HIGHLIGHTS Child Welfare 1 Ri hts of Children an Families 6 Juvenile -Justice 8 Other Cases of Interest 10 Supreme Court News 12 From the ABA 14 Surrogates, Grandparents and Putative Fathers American Bar Association

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most