Child Abuse & Child Witness Flashcards
Landeros v. Flood*
Ca. SC 1976.Physicians are expected to diagnose child abuse and report suspected cases to the authorties.
DeShaney v. Winnebago*
USSC 1989. Child was abused by father and suffered brain damage. DSS received numerous complaints and failed to protect the child. Mother (& child) sued under Section 1983 and alleged a violation of rights under the substantive due process clause of the 14th amendment. USSC decided that the failure of the state to protect a child who is not in state custody from an abusive parent is not protected under Section 1983. Under Section 1983, a duty to protect is applicable in situations in which the child is in STATE custody. This decision applies only to cases that file under Sect. 1983. Also, it remains unclear what will happen if a child in state custody is abused and sues under Sect. 1983.
Santosky v. Kramer*
USSC 1982. 14th Amendment. Set the national constitutional minimum for termination of parental rights to a “clear & convincing” standard of proof.
Rule 601 of the F.R.O.E.
- Children are presumed competent to testify and must be proven to be incompetent.
Rule 603 of the F.R.O.E.
“Every witness shall be required to declare that the witness will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken the witness’ conscience and impress the witness’ mind with the duty to do so.”
Kentucky v. Stincer
USSC 1987. 6th Amendment (Confrontation clause) The accused (abuser) has no right to be present at the competency to testify hearing of the (abused) child witness.
Coy v. Iowa
USSC 1988. 6th & 14 Due Process. Man claimed his 6th and 14th amendment rights were violated by an Iowa law that allowed his two 13 yr old accusers to testify behind a large screen. The large screen was intended to shield the girls from intimidation of their alleged abuser. USSC declared use of the screen was a clear violation of the man’s 6th amendment rights. They made no comment on his 14th amendment claims.
Maryland v. Craig
USSC 1990. 6th (Confrontation clause). Woman alleged that use of a 1-way closed circuit camera to allow testimony of her accuser violated her 6th amendment right. Maryland law allowed for these special situations if the testimony would result in such “serious emotional distress that the child cannot reasonably communicate.” An expert testified that the child would be unable to testify without the special setup. Unlike Coy v. Iowa, the USSC said this procedure was okay; the USSC declared that the state make an adequate “showing of necessity” to justify these special situations. See pg 322 for three requirements.
Rule 801 of the F.R.O.E.
Defines “hearsay”
Rule 803 of the F.R.O.E.
Allows “presumptively reliable” hearsay into evidence. Two circumstances applicable to child abuse cases are (1) the “excited utterance” exception and (2) the”medical diagnosis” or “treatment” exception.
terms “credibility” vs. “reliability”
Credibility is the believability of one’s testimony. Reliability is the truthfulness (objective) of one’s testimony. As a rule, regarding children, there is an inverse relationship between reliability and credibility in a given child (see Sam Stone experiment).
People v. Stritzinger*
CaSC 1983. 13 yr old girl was molested by her stepfather. Mother found out and arranged for both daughter and stepfather to see a psychologist. Psychologist reported abuse to Child Welfare. Child Welfare contacted the sheriff who then questioned the psychologist. Psychologist was uneasy about talking to sheriff about info learned from the stepfather, but the sheriff convinced him the info was not privileged. Mom prevented victim from testifying at trial, so court admitted victim’s testimony at a preliminary hearing into evidence. Defendant was found guilty and appealed on the 6th amendment and on violation of psychotherapist-patient privilege. CaSC reverses citing the trial court’s error in erroneous admitting the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony (a qualified person must say she cannot testify, not mom) and the therapist’s into evidence.
State of MN v. Andring*
SC of Minn. 1984. Man molested stepdaughter and niece and is charged with three counts of 2nd degree criminal sexual conduct. He then admitted himself into inpt tx where he disclosed inculpatory information regarding his pending charges. He disclosed the info in 3 separate venues: (1) with RN & med. student counseling sessions, (2) during social history with RN, and (3) during group therapy sessions. State moved to gain access to man’s medical records, and the trial court denied all access except for group sessions. Trial court forwards issue to SC of Minn. SC of Minn. holds that physician-patient privilege extends to psychotherapy groups as they are integral and necessay to a pt’s dx and tx.
