Opinion ID: 6345064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conduct During the In Camera Interviews

Text: Our review begins with the in camera interviews, which we find violated not only our Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, but also the Rules of Evidence. First, Rule 8 of the West Virginia Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and 6 Because we afford relief on these two assigned errors, we need not address Petitioner Mother’s remaining assignments of error, which include: 1) the circuit court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous; 2) the circuit court erred in reinstating a prior parenting plan without undertaking a “best interests” analysis; and 3) the DHHR failed to perform a comprehensive and independent investigation into the allegations of abuse. 14 Neglect Proceedings, which governs the taking of children’s testimony, provides in relevant part: (a) Restrictions on the testimony of children. — Notwithstanding any limitation on the ability to testify imposed by this rule, all children remain competent to testify in any proceeding before the court as determined by the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the potential psychological harm to the child outweighs the necessity of the child’s testimony and the court shall exclude this testimony if the potential psychological harm to the child outweighs the necessity of the child’s testimony. Further, the court may exclude the child’s testimony if (A) the equivalent evidence can be procured through other reasonable efforts; (B) the child’s testimony is not more probative on the issue than the other forms of evidence presented; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interest of justice will best be served by the exclusion of the child’s testimony. Id. (emphasis added). By its plain language this rule presumes that the act of testifying may be psychologically harmful to children and imposes constraints and conditions as guidance for the court in determining whether to permit a child to testify. As a preliminary matter, it is not at all clear that it was necessary to interview K.B.-R. and L.R in order to fully develop the record in this case. The children made consistent disclosures of sexual abuse to no less than three witnesses whose testimony was also before the circuit court. Moreover, the record below contained video recordings of the children’s interviews with CAC which included substantially the same information the circuit court attempted to glean from the in camera interviews. Despite the apparent lack of necessity for the in camera interviews here, we will presume for the purposes of our analysis that the court was properly within its discretion to conduct the interviews. 15 Second, the circuit court’s method of questioning the child L.R. plainly violated Rule 611 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. Rule 611(a)(3) provides, in relevant part: “[t]he court should exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: . . . protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. Id. (emphasis added). In regard to L.R., not only did it fail to protect L.R. from harassment, the court perpetrated the harassment insofar as it repeatedly accused her of lying and left her in tears. Even assuming, arguendo, that L.R.’s bursting into tears was an acceptable risk in taking the child’s testimony, we cannot conceive of any reasonable method or purpose of questioning a child which involves openly and directly accusing the child of lying. From our review of the in camera hearing transcript, we find that the manner in which the circuit court conducted the interviews of the children violated the protection from psychological harm afforded by Rule 8. 7 Beginning with the interview of seven-yearold L.R., a cursory review of the transcript indicates that the child was distressed from the outset. She openly expressed her desire to leave the room and to go home, she was initially hesitant to discuss the sexual abuse allegations, and she at various points wandered around the room and hid under a table. Despite this, the circuit court proceeded with questioning 7 This Court has not — and will not — set explicit guidelines for conducting in camera interviews, as the rules generally afford the circuit court discretion in the manner of taking the child’s testimony, as long as the circuit court complies with the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The learned judges of this state are well-suited to interview children in a manner which comports with their professional, ethical, and legal obligations. 16 the child, apparently to some success as L.R. began to answer the questions posed to her. However, the interview took a decidedly downward turn when the court asked L.R. about the explicit material on her electronic device. At that point, the court repeatedly accused the child of lying when she explained that Respondent father told her to take the photos and videos. The court was so persistent in this endeavor that L.R. began to cry. While the court attempted to calm her, it continued to question her despite her emotional response. Ultimately, the interview culminated in another exchange during which the court told the child she was lying after she described the instances of inappropriate touching, leaving the child in tears. Again, the specific purpose of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings is to protect the child from the psychologically harmful effects of testifying. From the record, it is apparent that this interview approached — and may have transgressed — the bounds of psychological harm to L.R. Accordingly, we conclude that the court violated Rule 8 and, therefore, erred in the manner in which it conducted L.R.’s in camera interview. With respect to the interview of six-year-old K.B.-R., who was not brought to tears but did exhibit initial signs of distress comparable to those exhibited by L.R., it is noteworthy that she was easily distracted, hid under the table, and expressed a desire to leave. Despite the more subdued nature of this interview, we are concerned that the circuit court may have coerced the child into implicating Petitioner Mother in a “sinister plan” to 17 fabricate allegations against Respondent Father. 8 Upon review, we find that the court’s manner of questioning K.B.-R. also violated Rule 8 and, therefore, constituted error. Rule 611(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence provides in relevant part, that “[l]eading questions should not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop the witness’s testimony.” Unquestionably, a court may ask a child leading questions during an in camera interview when appropriate. We have addressed Rule 611(c) in the context of child witnesses in State v. Cottingham, finding that a circuit court did not err in leading a child who “was very reticent to testify, [] had to be repeatedly asked to speak up, and [] often would not give an answer unless prompted to do so.” No. 13-1211, 2014 WL 5545930 (W. Va. Nov. 3, 2014) (memorandum decision). An examination of the transcript of the in camera interview of K.B.-R. reveals that the factors we considered in Cottingham were not present here. Specifically, unlike the thirteen-year-old witness in that case, six-year-old K.B.-R. freely answered the 8 Again, we do not address whether such a plan actually existed, but with the prospect that the circuit court’s method of questioning coerced the child into agreeing that a plan existed, simply to confirm the court’s stated suspicions in that regard. A full review of the child’s testimony reveals that there was never a mention of any “plan” until the court first used those words by asking K.B.-R., “What are we going to do about [Respondent Father]? What’s our plan?” Thereafter, the circuit court repeatedly used the word “plan” in its questions, progressively tailoring questions to lead the child to confirm that the plan was “secret” — yet another word only used by the court — and that Petitioner Mother had concocted a scheme to “say bad things” about Respondent Father to the police and to the court. The court then used that testimony to find in its order that the children had been subject to parental coaching. 18 circuit court’s questions, albeit in a manner typical of young children (e.g., “uh-huh” and “huh-uh” unless the question required a more elaborate answer). While she was subject to some prompting, overall, she was forthcoming in describing the allegations of abuse. Moreover, despite the court’s myriad questions essentially asking if the child had been coached, K.B.-R. consistently testified that she was not instructed to say certain things or testify in a particular manner. We believe the circuit court may have suspected that the children had been subject to coaching, and thus used the interview of K.B.-R. to confirm that suspicion. While we do not fault the court for attempting to ascertain whether those suspicions were well-founded, the manner in which the court used leading questions violated both the law enunciated by the Court in Cottingham and the Rules of Evidence. Consequently, we find that the court erred in asking K.B.-R. leading questions that cause a reviewer to question whether they were calculated to confirm a pre-existing suspicion rather than elicit truthful testimony. In sum, we conclude that the circuit court erred in the manner in which it conducted the in camera interviews of L.R. and K.B.-R. While it is not unique that both children were distressed at such a time, during the conduct of in camera interviews the court must remain vigilant as to the vulnerability of interviewees — especially young children. To accuse a seven-year-old child of lying, thereby reducing that child to tears, and to strongly suggest — if not coerce — an even younger child to implicate a parent in a plot to fabricate allegations of abuse, is inconsistent with the court’s role as an impartial 19 factfinder. This is both a violation of the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings. In this regard, we have held that “[w]here it appears from the record that the process established by the Rules of Procedure for Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings and related statutes for the disposition of cases involving children [alleged] to be abused or neglected has been substantially disregarded or frustrated, the resulting order . . . will be vacated and the case remanded for compliance with that process and entry of an appropriate . . . order.” Syllabus point 5, in part, In re Edward B., 210 W.Va. 621, 558 S.E.2d 620 (2001). Syl. Pt. 3, In re Emily G., 224 W. Va. 390, 686 S.E.2d 41 (2009). Accordingly, because the procedures established by the relevant rules have been substantially disregarded and frustrated, we vacate the circuit court’s order dismissing the abuse and neglect petition and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Further, we direct that, upon remand, this matter be assigned to a different circuit judge who is to undertake an appropriate, independent review in resolving this case.