Title: In re C.K.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_CK.94-508; 164 Vt 462; 671 A.2d 1270

[Filed 15-Dec-1995]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                              No. 94-508 & 95-381

In re C.K., Juvenile                              Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
                                                  Franklin Family Court

                                                  September Term, 1995


Linda Levitt, J. (no. 94-508)

John Meaker, J. (no. 95-381)

       Robert Appel & Henry Hinton, Defender Generals and Judith A. Ianelli,
  Appellate Defender, Montpelier, for appellant father

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, Alexandra N. Thayer,
  Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, Charles Martin of Martin & Paolini,
  Barre, Howard Van Benthuysen and James A. Hughes, Franklin County State's
  Attorneys, and Howard Stalnaker, Deputy State's Attorney, St. Albans, for
  appellees


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



       DOOLEY, J.   This is a consolidated appeal from a Franklin Family
  Court CHINS merits order finding C.K. to be a child in need of supervision
  (CHINS),(FN1) and an order terminating parental rights.  First, the
  appellant-father appeals the CHINS finding, arguing that (1) the trial
  court improperly admitted hearsay testimony under V.R.E. 804a(a)(3), (2)
  the court

 

  violated his right to confront witnesses by excluding him from the
  courtroom as the child testified, and (3) the court improperly admitted and
  relied upon hearsay expert testimony to find that C.K. had been sexually
  abused.  We affirm the merits determination.  Second, the father appeals
  the subsequent order terminating his parental rights, arguing that (1) the
  court violated his due process rights by prohibiting him from deposing the
  child or calling the child as a witness, and (2) the court erred in
  refusing to admit evidence that he did not sexually abuse the child as
  found in the merits adjudication.  Because we find that the court erred in
  the resolution of the second issue, as we recently held in In re J.R., No.
  94-038, slip op. at 5 (Vt. Oct. 20, 1995), we reverse and remand the
  termination order for a new hearing consistent with that holding.

       On November 27, 1990, the Vermont Department of Social and
  Rehabilitation Services (SRS) took C.K. into custody after she had reported
  to the school nurse that her father had sexually abused her.  She told the
  nurse that her father had touched her "privates," that it hurt, that he had
  asked her to keep it a secret.

       Based on the allegations of sexual abuse, SRS sought to have C.K.
  declared a child in need of supervision.  A contested merits hearing was
  held on December 19-20, 1990.  As his first witness, the father called a
  pediatrician who had examined C.K. after she had been placed in SRS
  custody.  On direct examination, the pediatrician testified that he had
  performed a physical examination of C.K.'s vaginal area and found no
  evidence of trauma.  During cross-examination, the State asked the
  pediatrician whether he had an opinion as to whether C.K. had been sexually
  abused.  Over the father's objection, the pediatrician testified that he
  believed C.K. had been sexually abused.  Also over objection, the
  pediatrician testified to what C.K. had told him about the specific acts of
  sexual abuse by her father.  He then testified that the information that
  C.K. had given him had been taken for treatment purposes and was therefore
  medical history.  The father objected to the admission of C.K.'s statements
  to the pediatrician on the ground that the statements did not fall within
  the hearsay exception under Rule 804a.  The

 

  court overruled the objection, concluding that the statements by C.K. to
  the pediatrician were taken for the purposes of treatment and therefore
  were admissible under Rule 804a.

       The school nurse testified next, recounting what had happened during
  her routine examination of C.K. on November 27, 1990.  The nurse explained
  that, while treating C.K. for a possible hearing problem, C.K. disclosed to
  her that she had been molested by her father.

       After the nurse concluded her testimony, C.K. took the stand and gave
  extensive testimony during both direct and cross-examination.  Initially,
  C.K.'s attorney informed the court that she would not testify in the
  presence of her father because she was concerned that her testimony would
  hurt him.  In response, the court altered seating arrangements in the
  courtroom so that the father would be out of C.K.'s line of sight.  Once in
  the courtroom, however, C.K. became upset when she realized her father was
  still in the courtroom.  When asked to tell the court about the incidents
  of sexual abuse, she replied, "I can't say it in front of my dad."  The
  court then excluded the father from the courtroom during C.K.'s testimony,
  but ordered that C.K.'s testimony be read to the father, in the presence of
  his attorney, before the attorney cross-examined C.K.  Once the father was
  out of the courtroom, C.K. testified that she had been sexually abused.

       Based on the evidence, the court found that C.K. had been sexually
  abused, and therefore, was a child in need of care and supervision.  The
  court particularly based its decision on the extensive testimony of C.K.,
  whom the court found to be a "spontaneous, honest witness, knew what the
  truth was and knew what a lie was, [and] told the truth."  C.K.'s testimony
  was corroborated by the testimony of the pediatrician and the school nurse,
  whom the court found to be "credible witness[es]."  After a disposition
  hearing, custody and guardianship of C.K. were transferred to SRS.

       SRS filed a petition to terminate parental rights on January 17, 1994. 
  On September 9, 1994, the court terminated the parental rights of both of
  C.K.'s parents, concluding that, in the four years since the initial SRS
  intervention, "no progress has been made towards family

 

  reunification."  The father appeals both the CHINS findings, and the
  termination of his parental rights.

       The father's first arguments involve the admissibility in the merits
  hearing of the testimony of the pediatrician and nurse, relating C.K.'s
  statements to them that she had been sexually abused by her father.  The
  court admitted this testimony under Vermont Rule of Evidence 804a.  The
  pertinent part of Rule 804a provides that a witness may testify to hearsay
  statements made by a child ten years old or younger if there is an
  allegation of sexual assault on the child, the statements concern the
  alleged crime, the statements were not taken in preparation for a legal
  proceeding, the child is available to testify in court or under Rule 807,
  and the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provide
  substantial indicia of trustworthiness.  See State v. Weeks, 160 Vt. 393,
  399,