In Re Tayler F. (Connecticut 2010), 296 Conn. 524

Summary

The court affirmed the neglect judgments, holding that a child may be deemed unavailable for purposes of the residual hearsay exception when competent, child-specific evidence establishes that testifying would cause psychological harm. The court also held that the statutory confrontation provision does not displace the ordinary rules of evidence and that due process does not create an unqualified right to confront and cross-examine a hearsay declarant in a neglect proceeding. The court concluded that the psychologist's testimony ultimately supplied an adequate basis for finding the children psychologically unavailable and that admission of their statements was reasonably necessary.

Holding

Psychological unavailability and the residual hearsay exception. A trial court may find a child unavailable when competent evidence specific to that child and the circumstances establishes that the child will suffer psychological harm from testifying. The offering party bears the burden of proving unavailability, and a finding that testifying is not in the child's best interest is insufficient by itself. In this case, the psychologist's testimony adequately established psychological harm, so admission of the statements was reasonably necessary.

Statutory confrontation and cross-examination right. The statutory right of confrontation and cross-examination in a neglect proceeding does not eliminate the rules of evidence or categorically bar admission of otherwise admissible hearsay when the declarant is not called as a witness.

Federal due process right to confrontation and cross-examination. Due process does not give a parent in a neglect proceeding an unqualified right to confront and cross-examine every hearsay declarant or bar evidence that is otherwise properly admitted under the rules of evidence.

In Re Tayler F.

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by