Case Title: MATTER OF DECLARING T E R

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14286 IN THE SUPREME (BURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1978 IN THE MATTER OF DMILARING T.E.R. Youth in Need of Care. Appeal fram: D i s t r i c t Court of the Tenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable LRRoy L. McKimn, Judge presiding. Counsel of m r d : For Appellant: William E. Berger argued, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, H e l e n a , Montana W i l l i a m Spoja, Jr. , County Attorney, Ledstawn, I%ntana Timothy O'Hare, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Lewistown, Montana K. Mbert Foster argued, Lewistown, Montana PFp 979 Filed : Skmitted: November 21, 1978 Decided: FEi3 i, * 79'79 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal by t h e parents of a minor child from a judgment and order entered October 17, 1977, i n the Youth Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Fergus County, the Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon presiding. The judgment de- clared T.E.R. t o be a Youth i n Need of C a r e and awarded permanent custody of T.E.R. t o the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services of the S t a t e of Montana (SRS) with authority t o consent t o her adoption. O n October 29, 1975, James Longin, the principal a t T.E.R.'s school, n o t i f i e d Roberta Knopp, a child welfare caseworker, t h a t T.E.R. might be the victim of child abuse. Subsequent t o her investigation, M s . Knopp offered "protec- t i v e services" which consisted of regular v i s i t s t o the c h i l d ' s home. Over the course of t h e next year and a h a l f , she maintained contact with T.E.R., noticing, on occasion, a number of bruises which she suspected t o be the r e s u l t of some abuse. Among other things, testimony indicated t h a t T.E.R. i s bright f o r her age but not w e l l adjusted. I n February 1977, shortly before her twelfth birthday and while attending the fourth grade, she exhibited t h i s poor adjustment by damaging two c e i l i n g t i l e s i n a restroom a t her school. The school's principal, who had been working with T.E.R. and her parents periodically f o r two years, wrote her parents d e t a i l i n g t h e incident and suggested c e r t a i n changes i n t h e i r treatment of T.E.R. A few weeks a f t e r t h i s incident, M s . Knopp placed T.E.R. i n 24 hour day care because her stepfather had been hospitalized and her mother was working outside the home a t a job which required her presence 24 hours each day. After a month had passed under t h i s arrangement, M s . Knopp t o l d T.E.R. t h a t she would be taking her back home s h o r t l y . T.E.R. reacted t o t h i s suggestion with some alarm and, a f t e r some prodding, t o l d M s . Knopp of r e c e n t i n c i d e n t s of sexual abuse by her stepfather. The incidents had allegedly in- creased i n frequency s i n c e her mother had taken t h e job which kept her away from t h e family home. On Monday, A p r i l 15, 1977, two days a f t e r t h e i r t a l k , M s . Knopp took T.E.R. t o a doctor who performed a p e l v i c examination. The doctor t o l d M s . Knopp t h a t t h e r e was evidence of sexual c o n t a c t and M s . Knopp immediately placed T.E.R. i n a f o s t e r home i n Harlowton, Montana. One week later, on Monday, April 22, 1977, t h e deputy county attorney f o r Fergus County, f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r youth hearing, a l l e g i n g t h a t T.E.R. w a s a youth i n need of supervision because of t h e February i n c i d e n t a t school and because she was "habitually disobedient and beyond p a r e n t a l control". On May 4 , 1977, a hearing was held a t which T.E.R. was represented by a n attorney, t h e S t a t e was represented by t h e deputy county attorney, and T.E.R.'s parents represented themselves. On motion of t h e attorney representing t h e c h i l d , t h e p e t i t i o n w a s o r a l l y amended t o include allega- t i o n s t h a t T.E.R. w a s a youth i n need of care. T.E.R. gave her statement i n chambers, outside t h e presence of her parents. While she w a s t e s t i f y i n g , her s t e p f a t h e r appar- e n t l y suffered a h e a r t a t t a c k and w a s taken t o t h e h o s p i t a l . A t t h a t t i m e , t h e deputy county attorney moved t h a t t h e hearing be continued u n t i l t h e S t a t e could f i l e an amended p e t i t i o n i n s e r t i n g t h e charge t h a t T.E.R. w a s a youth i n need of care and have t h e amended p e t i t i o n s served on a l l p a r t i e s . This w a s done on June 2, 1977. Subsequent hearings, on July 7 and August 4 , primarily addressed a l l e g a t i o n s of physical and sexual abuse by T . E . R . ' ~ stepfather. T.E.R.'s stepfather denied these allegations and, through h i s attorney, attempted t o prove t h a t T.E.R. had a reputation f o r untruthfulness and t h a t i f she had been sexually active, it would have been with neighborhood boys. O n appeal t h e parents present four i s s u e s f o r our con- sideration. They can be summarized and s t a t e d a s follows: 1. Whether t h e Youth Court erred i n allowing the c h i l d t o t e s t i f y outside t h e presence of her parents a s t o t h e alleged sexual and physical abuse by her stepfather. 2. Whether t h e Youth Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n making a finding of sexual abuse based primarily on the c h i l d ' s disputed testimony. 3 . Whether t h e Youth Court erred by considering T.E.R.'s r e p o r t cards, submitted subsequent t o t h e hearing by t h e Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. 4 . Whether t h e S t a t e followed proper procedures i n taking T.E.R. i n t o custody and maintaining custody pending t h e Youth Court's ultimate determination on t h e p e t i t i o n a l l e g i n g her t o be a youth i n need of care. T.E.R. t e s t i f i e d on two occasions; both t i m e s she was permitted t o t e s t i f y outside t h e presence of her parents. O n t h e f i r s t occasion, a t t h e May 4 hearing, she was ques- tioned by t h e attorney appointed t o represent her and by t h e deputy county attorney. It was while t h i s testimony was being given t h a t T.E.R.'s stepfather suffered a h e a r t a t t a c k i n t h e courtroom where he was waiting with T . E . R . ' s mother. The second time T.E.R. was questioned was a t t h e ~ u l y 7 hearing. O n t h a t occasion t h e attorney f o r t h e parents was given t h e opportunity t o cross-examine. The parents argue t h a t the allegations made by T.E.R. i n the course of her testimony amounted t o charging her stepfather with criminal conduct and t h a t he was therefore constitutionally e n t i t l e d t o confront h i s accuser. W e do not agree. A t the o u t s e t it should be noted t h a t a "peti- t i o n alleging abuse, neglect, o r dependency i s a c i v i l action brought i n the name of the s t a t e of Montana. . ." Section 10-1310(3), R.C.M. 1947, now section 41-3-401(3) MCA. The overriding policy which underlies a l l actions involving potentially abused children i s " t o provide f o r the protection of children whose health and welfare a r e adversely affected and further threatened by the conduct of those responsible f o r t h e i r care and protection." Section 10- 1303, R.C.M. 1947, now section 41-3-101(2) MCA. Under circumstances such a s those presented i n t h e i n s t a n t case, it may be necessary f o r a c h i l d ' s testimony t o be taken outside the presence of "those responsible f o r t h e i r care and protection." W e therefore hold t h a t a child may t e s t i f y outside t h e presence of h i s parents i n a case involving allegations of abuse and neglect, subject t o cross-examina- t i o n by the parents' attorney, when the presiding judge determines t h a t it i s the most l i k e l y method of discovering t h e whole t r u t h a s t o the alleged abuse o r neglect. The next issue presented r e f e r s t o t h e c o u r t ' s Finding of Fact No. 12: "12. That t h e step-father has fondled the said youth, and has attempted t o have sexual rela- t i o n s with her on many occasions when the mother was not i n the home." The parents argue t h a t t h e judge erred i n making such a finding i n l i g h t of testimony adduced a t the hearing t h a t T.E.R. has l i e d a t times t o avoid punishment and t h a t she does not wish t o l i v e with her stepfather. However, our review of t h e testimony does not r e v e a l t h a t the Youth Court c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a r r i v i n g a t t h i s determina- t i o n . Where testimony is d i r e c t l y c o n f l i c t i n g w e presume t h a t t h e judge's findings are c o r r e c t because he w a s present when t h e testimony was given and had t h e opportunity t o observe t h e demeanor of t h e witnesses. Hellickson v. B a r r e t t Mobile Home Transp. (1973), 161 Mont. 455, 460, 507 P.2d 523, 526. A s a r e s u l t , w e do not f i n d t h a t t h e Youth Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n making a finding of sexual abuse based primarily on t h e c h i l d ' s disputed testimony. The parents' t h i r d i s s u e concerns T.E.R.'s school r e p o r t card which w a s submitted t o t h e judge f o r h i s con- s i d e r a t i o n some t i m e a f t e r t h e conclusion of t h e August 4 hearing. I n f a c t he d i d not receive t h e r e p o r t card u n t i l sometime i n October. A s evidence, t h e r e p o r t card f a l l s within Rule 803(6), Mont.R.Evid., which excepts records of r e g u l a r l y conducted a c t i v i t y from t h e hearsay prohibition. The f a c t t h a t t h e r e p o r t card was brought t o t h e judge's a t t e n t i o n a f t e r t h e conclusion of t h e hearing i s somewhat d i s t u r b i n g b u t does not amount t o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . F i r s t , t h e r e p o r t card w a s not i n existence a t t h e time t h e hearing concluded. Second, t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e q u i r e some degree of f l e x i b i l i t y i n procedure t o i n s u r e t h a t a l l evidence pertaining t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d may be considered. I n addition, counsel f o r t h e parents knew of t h i s r e p o r t card and has never questioned i t s authen- t i c i t y . W e f i n d under t h e circumstances of t h e i n s t a n t case t h a t t h e Youth Court d i d not err i n considering T.E.R.'s r e p o r t card. The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e parents concerns t h e procedure by which T.E.R. w a s taken from her home by Ms. Knopp, t h e caseworker from SRS. What d i d not appear from t h e record a s it was submitted t o t h i s Court, b u t what has been made a p a r t of t h e record pursuant t o s t i p u l a t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s during o r a l argument, i s t h a t a proceeding w a s held on ~ p r i l 20, 1977. A t t h a t t i m e T.E.R.'s mother agreed t o t h e s h e l t e r c a r e arrangement proposed by M s . Knopp, t o be implemented pending determination of t h i s matter by t h e Youth Court. Thus, t o prevent any possible embarrassment t o T.E.R.'s parents, t h e p a r t i e s then proceeded pursuant t o t h e s t a t u t o r y provisions regarding youths i n need of supervision r a t h e r than youths i n need of care. I n i t i a l l y , t h i s had t h e e f f e c t of e s t a b l i s h i n g f o r t h e s t e p f a t h e r a prima f a c i e showing of d e n i a l of due process. A t t h e May 4 hearing, he had only received n o t i c e t h a t a l l e g a t i o n s had been made t h a t T.E.R. w a s a youth i n need of supervision. The t r u e concern of t h e p a r t i e s , however, w a s t h a t T.E.R. might be a youth i n need of c a r e because of sexual abuse. Had t h e s t e p f a t h e r n o t suffered a h e a r t a t t a c k during t h a t hearing, t h e S t a t e may not have had an opportunity t o cure t h e alleged d e f e c t s with r e s p e c t t o due process p r i o r t o a f i n a l determination by t h e Youth Court. But subsequent t o t h a t hearing, t h e s t e p f a t h e r had been apprised of t h e t r u e nature of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s involved i n t h e case. He was given t h e oppor- t u n i t y t o t e s t i f y , and he w a s represented by counsel. I n addition, he was a b l e through h i s counsel t o cross-examine T.E.R. with r e s p e c t t o her a l l e g a t i o n s . Therefore, though t h e procedures involved i n t h i s case w e r e highly unusual and n o t condoned by t h i s Court, w e f i n d t h a t T . E . R . ' s s t e p f a t h e r was u l t i m a t e l y afforded due process. Beyond t h a t , however, something more stands out. These proceedings focused primarily on allegations of improper conduct on the p a r t of t h e stepfather. These allegations were found t o be supported by a preponderance of t h e evi- dence, and t h e Youth Court was therefore c o r r e c t i n finding T.E.R.'s stepfather t o be "an u n f i t person t o have custody; t h a t by reason of h i s dominance i n the family the youth i s unable t o avoid h i s abuse." However, a careful review of the record does not reveal t h a t the Youth Court adequately considered the r i g h t s of T.E.R.'s mother i n awarding permanent custody of T.E.R. t o SRS with authority t o consent t o her adoption. In addition t o t h e i r r i g h t s as a couple, parents may have individual r i g h t s w i t h respect t o t h e i r children. The record i n t h e i n s t a n t case reveals t h a t the mother's r i g h t s were afforded no more than s u p e r f i c i a l consideration. Therefore, t h e order of t h e Youth Court i s vacated t o the extent t h a t it applies t o T . E . R . ' s mother, and the case i s remanded t o the Youth Court f o r further proceedings t o determine the f u t u r e s t a t u s of the mother's parental r i g h t s . W e concur: U 7 & ' , 4 , &&,,&&q Chief J u s t i c e