Opinion ID: 2074214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of T.J.'s Brother David

Text: In his appeal, Delestre assigns error to the trial justice's refusal to compel T.J.'s ten-year-old brother David to testify at trial. He contends that this decision violated his constitutional guarantee of due process. We do not agree. At trial, DCYF introduced a letter from David's treating physician, Dr. Azarian, in which she opined that [t]estifying would be detrimental to the child's emotional well-being because David would likely experience flashbacks and that it would be devastating [for him] to relive the events leading up to T.J.'s death. We note that David's guardian ad litem also opposed having David testify. Delestre moved to compel the child's testimony, arguing that his interest in having David testify outweighed the state's interest. The trial justice denied Delestre's motion. He declared that it was the court's obligation to protect David and to act in his best interest and that if there was ever a case that cried out for    protection, it's this case at this time. Having found that the child would be further traumatized, he declined to compel his testimony. In his brief to this Court, Delestre concedes that there is no constitutional right to confrontation or cross-examination in this, or any other, civil proceeding. This Court previously has held that, although parents enjoy a `fundamental liberty interest [with respect to] the care, custody, and management of their child[ren],'    [and] are entitled to procedural due process before the termination of their parental rights[,] the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation [13] relates only to criminal proceedings and is not available in this context. In re Ginger G., 775 A.2d at 257. [14] As such, the trial justice's refusal to enforce the subpoena compelling David to appear and testify was well within his sound discretion and, after reviewing the opinion of Dr. Azarian, we are satisfied that he properly exercised that discretion. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 855-56, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990) (holding that, even in the context of a criminal case, the court must consider the best interest of the child and make an evidentiary finding that the child would be substantially traumatized in order to limit a party's right to confrontation). Additionally, we are satisfied that Delestre was not denied his right to due process based on the unavailability of this child witness.