Opinion ID: 1138488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court improperly excluded the testimony of the casa worker and the department of human services social workers.

Text: DHS argues the CASA, Sally Garland, and social workers should have been allowed to offer observations about the children while in foster care and the basis for their opinions. The chancellor continuously sustained objections to questions inquiring into areas concerning the best interest of the children. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-603 indicates that at youth court hearings, to determine the disposition of a child adjudicated as neglected, traditional rules of evidence simply do not apply. That section provides, in relevant part: (2) All testimony shall be under oath unless waived by all parties and may be in narrative form. The court may consider any evidence which is material and relevant to the disposition of the cause, including hearsay and opinion evidence. (emphasis added). Section 43-21-613(2) provides that disposition orders may be modified: On motion of a child or a child's parent, guardian or custodian, the youth court may, in its discretion, conduct an informal hearing to review the disposition order. In addition, subsection (3) clearly contemplates that upon review of any disposition order, the youth court judge shall have before him for his consideration as much information as possible: In conducting the review, the judge or referee may require a written report, information or statements from the child's youth court counselor, parent, guardian or custodian which includes, but is not limited to, an evaluation of the child's progress and recommendations for further supervision or treatment. The Youth Court Act thus clearly contemplates that strict adherence to our rules of evidence will not be required, and indeed, concerns over hearsay evidence and the like are basically dismissed. Finally, a complete reading of § 43-21-613(3) leads to the inescapable conclusion that testimony regarding a child's progress from those best able to comment is encouraged. In the case of B.D. and R.D., considering the failure to appoint them a guardian ad litem, certainly the testimony of the social workers specifically assigned to their cases should have been allowed. Since the record did not reflect an order appointing the CASA Garland, and the chancellor specifically stated that no such appointment occurred, the chancellor was not in error prohibiting Garland's testimony. However, a CASA Program was established by the chancellor and Garland was apparently actively participating in the case on behalf of the children, and the pleadings within the record so indicated. On remand, the chancellor may certainly correct this apparent oversight, enter the appropriate order and in his discretion consider allowing Garland's testimony.