Court Opinion

ID: 9663407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:38:01.494631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:49.455864
License: Public Domain

E. E. Borradaile, J.
(dissenting in part). I dissent from Part I, but concur in the rest of the majority opinion of this case.
MCR 5.901(B) says:
Although the procedures are not criminal, the court and its officers shall proceed in a manner so as to safeguard procedural rights and the proper *264interests of the child, the child’s parents, guardians, or custodian, and the public.
In view of the history of the adoption of the Michigan Rules of Evidence by our Supreme Court, and the care taken relative to the language used, I cannot find that MRE 803(4), concerning statements made for the purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in connection with medical treatment, applies to hearsay statements made to a psychiatric social worker. In People v Wilkins, 134 Mich App 39, 43-44; 349 NW2d 815 (1984), regarding statements made by a nine-year-old child to a physician concerning a sexual attack, the Court said:
Since there are no Michigan cases on point, we look to the federal rules and decisions for guidance. FRE 803(4) is identical to MRE 803(4), except that FRE 803(4) is broader in that it only restricts the exception to statements "insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment”. FRE 803(4). (Emphasis supplied.) In United States v Iron Shell, 633 F2d 77 (CA 8, 1980), cert den 450 US 1001; 101 S Ct 1709; 68 L Ed 2d 203 (1981), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the application of FRE 803(4) to the testimony of an examining physician which contained a repetition of a nine-year-old victim’s description of an assault as related to the physician by the victim. The court stated that there are two independent rationales for the medical treatment exception. The first is that the patient’s statements are likely to be reliable because the patient has a strong motivation to tell the truth, as diagnosis and treatment depend in a large part upon what the patient says to the physician. The second rationale is that facts reliable enough to serve as a basis for medical diagnosis are also reliable enough to escape the hearsay proscription. Since life and death decisions are made by physicians in reliance on the facts related *265by the patient, they should have sufficient trustworthiness to be admissible in a court of law.
Despite the fact that the Advisory Committee’s Note to FRE 803(4) says that such a statement seems to be allowed even if made to hospital attendants, ambulance drivers or even members of the family, the Michigan Rules of Evidence contain no catchall hearsay exception such as is found in FRE 803(24):
A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness ....
A panel of this Court in In the Matter of Render, 145 Mich App 344, 347-348; 377 NW2d 421 (1985), said:
A parent’s interest in retention of his or her rights "undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” Stanley v Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208; 31 L Ed 2d 551 (1972); Reist v Bay Circuit Judge, 396 Mich 326, 341-342; 241 NW2d 55 (1976) (Levin, J.). Due to the fundamental nature of this interest, the state bears the burden (imposed by the federal constitution) of proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination of parental rights is warranted. Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745; 102 S Ct 1388; 71 L Ed 2d 599 (1982).
Because the burden in a parental termination case is higher than that in the ordinary civil case, but not quite as high as the proof beyond a reasonable doubt burden in a criminal case, I feel we must be very careful in interpreting the provisions of the Michigan Rules of Evidence so that federally and state protected constitutional rights are not denied. The concern about child abuse has *266become a major concern, and while the courts must not ignore the needs of the child, they cannot with impunity ignore constitutional provisions in making decisions as to what evidence can or cannot be used. The Michigan Supreme Court in People v Kreiner, 415 Mich 372; 329 NW2d 716 (1982), found that the tender years exception to the hearsay rule did not survive the adoption of the Michigan Rules of Evidence, and it seems to me that we must read the language relative to medical treatment or medical diagnosis with the same care.
In Attorney General v Beno, 422 Mich 293, 303; 373 NW2d 544 (1985), our Supreme Court, in dealing with the question of the authority of a chiropractor to do acts which would amount to the practice of medicine, stated that the licensing statute must be read very strictly. Justice Brickley defined the practice of medicine as
the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, cure, or relieving of a human disease, ailment, defect, complaint, or other physical or mental condition, by attendance, advice, device, diagnostic test, or other means, or offering, undertaking, attempting to do, or holding oneself out as able to do, any of these acts. [1978 PA 368, § 17001(c); MSA 333.17001(c); MSA 14.15(17001)(c).]
In Tziahanas v Dep’t of Licensing & Regulation, Psychology Board, 143 Mich App 75; 371 NW2d 477 (1985), a panel of this Court dealt with the requirements imposed for a psychologist to be licensed under the statute, MCL 333.18223(1); MSA 14.15(18223)(1). The majority opinion in the instant case seems to equate psychology with psychiatry and misses the point that a psychiatrist is a medical doctor who has interned in psychiatry after receiving his medical degree while psycholo*267gists may or may not have a doctoral degree in psychology or a doctoral degree in a closely related field before being licensed to practice as a psychologist. There is no showing in this case that the person to whom the hearsay statements were made by the child was in fact a psychologist who had a doctoral degree. The only showing in the case is that she was a psychiatric social worker, but nothing is shown as to her training or licensure as required under the Michigan Health Code.
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Zuniga, 714 F2d 632, 638-639 (CA 6, 1983), cert den 464 US 983; 104 S Ct 426; 78 L Ed 2d 361 (1983), said that, despite compelling considerations, the psychotherapist-patient privilege has received a mixed reception in the federal courts dealing with the issue of whether there was a psychotherapist-patient privilege as there is a physician-patient privilege. The court noted that the states have demonstrated a willingness to recognize the privilege and a substantial number, including Michigan, have adopted some form of psychotherapist-patient privilege and also that many learned authorities have advocated such a privilege. Though we are not dealing with the privilege question here, it is pertinent to note that the federal courts do not allow the psychotherapist-patient privilege in many cases, though People v Wilkins, supra, relies on interpretations of FRE 803(4) for determining the scope of the medical diagnosis exception.
The majority opinion also cites Galli v Reutter, 148 Mich App 313, 318; 384 NW2d 43 (1985), which states:
Defendant also contends that the testimony of plaintifFs physical therapist regarding her medical history was inadmissible hearsay because the wit*268ness was not an m.d. subject to the hearsay exception of MRE 803(4). We are not persuaded by the argument. MRE 803(4) is not by its terms limited solely to statements made for purposes of medical treatment by physicians and we decline to read the rule so narrowly. In any event, competent testimony from four doctors established the same medical history so that the error, if any, was harmless. See [People v] Slaton [135 Mich App 328, 338; 354 NW2d 326 (1984)].
It is apparent that the Galli panel was not faced directly with the issue that we have here which relies solely upon the testimony of a psychiatric social worker to establish the necessary evidence to show that the parent had sexual contact with the child.
I also dissent as to the use of evidence of what is shown by the child’s actions with the anatomically correct doll. I agree with the majority opinion that such acts are within the hearsay definition. I believe that the use of the anatomically correct doll must fall unless the foundation is laid to show that its use has achieved general scientific acceptance. See People v Young, 418 Mich 1; 340 NW2d 805 (1983), where the Court, in dealing with the use of serological electrophoretic analysis, followed Frye v United States, 54 US App DC 46; 293 F 1013 (1923); People v Davis, 343 Mich 348; 72 NW2d 269 (1955); People v Barbara, 400 Mich 352; 255 NW2d 171 (1977); and People v Tobey, 401 Mich 141; 257 NW2d 537 (1977). The same issue was discussed in People v Gonzales, 415 Mich 615; 329 NW2d 743 (1982), relating to the use of hypnosis in questioning witnesses.
I also disagree with the result in In the Matter of Rinesmith, 144 Mich App 475, 481; 376 NW2d 139 (1985), which determined that the response of *269a child using anatomically correct dolls does not rise to the level of a scientific test subject to the so-called Frye/Davis rule. The opinion determines that it is not a scientific test without showing what a scientific test is. In my opinion, the same criteria for evaluation should be used as the Supreme Court has required for lie-detector tests, truth serums, and alcohol and narcotics tests. A lie-detector test does not use chemicals and has an approach similar to the use of an anatomically correct doll.
I would adopt the reasoning of the court in State v Mueller, 344 NW2d 262 (Iowa App, 1983), in which the court considered statements made to a child psychologist by a three-year-old as well as the son’s nonverbal conduct with dolls that the psychologist interpreted as a sex act by the father in a criminal case. In that case, the prosecutor argued that the testimony came within the hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis, and the court held that the statements made to the child psychologist did not come within the medical diagnosis hearsay exception and that the sex act demonstrated by the child with the dolls did not change the hearsay character of such testimony. The court found that the admission of all such testimony was prejudicial and reversed the conviction of the defendant father.
I would remand this case to the probate court juvenile division for retrial and prohibit the admission of statements made by the child to the psychiatric social worker and further require that, a foundation be laid showing that the use of anatomically correct dolls has general acceptance within the scientific community before any testimony could be had relating thereto.