#24659, 24664-a-PER CURIAM
2008 SD 80
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
IN THE MATTER OF J.B.,
ALLEGED ABUSED/NEGLECTED CHILD
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. SRSTKA, Jr.
Judge
* * * *
SCOTT B. CARLSON of
Crew & Crew Attorneys for appellant
Sioux Falls, South Dakota father, A.B.
MATTHEW L. OLSON
Minnehaha County
Public Defender's Office Attorneys for appellant
Sioux Falls, South Dakota mother, N.B.
LAWRENCE E. LONG
Attorney General
ANN M. HOLZHAUSER
Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for appellee
Pierre, South Dakota State of South Dakota.
* * * *
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON JULY 24, 2008
OPINION FILED 8/6/08
#24659, 24664
PER CURIAM
[¶1.] A.B. (father) and N.B. (mother) appeal the termination of their
parental rights to their minor child, J.B. (child). We affirm.
FACTS
[¶2.] Child was born on May 29, 1997. During this time father and mother
were in the process of having their parental rights terminated to five other children
as the result of physical and emotional abuse. There were also concerns of sexual
abuse by the parents in that case, although they were not substantiated. On June
9, 2006, while at the dentist’s office, a hygienist asked about a bruise on child’s face.
Child told the hygienist that his mother got mad at him while cutting his
fingernails and slapped him three to four times, giving him a bloody nose. He
confirmed the account of the injury to the dentist and the incident was reported to
the Department of Social Services.
[¶3.] Law enforcement visited with mother and father. Mother maintained
it was an accidental blow with mother’s elbow while she trimmed his nails. Child
indicated mother hit him because she was angry and had done it before. Child was
taken into protective custody. Child was later admitted for residential treatment.
He suffered from ADHD, encopresis, 1 mild mental retardation and lacked social
skills. Child provided the same account of physical abuse to his care providers.
1. “Encopresis is repeatedly having bowel movements in places other than the
toilet after the age when bowel control can normally be expected.”
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/encopresis (last visited July
23, 2008).
-1-
#24659, 24664
Eventually, child disclosed further instances of physical abuse, fighting between his
parents and incidents of sexual abuse committed by father.
[¶4.] Child indicated mother was aware of the sexual abuse and when it
occurred he was allowed special treats to make up for it. Child’s encopresis was
also a sign of sexual abuse. The care providers noticed that child was afraid of
father; he had recurring nightmares and had repressed memories out of fear. Child
also drew pictures depicting sexual abuse by his father. Revelations by the parents'
other children concerning their extent of sexual abuse by both mother and father
were also introduced at the dispositional hearing. As a result of these sexual abuse
disclosures visits were discontinued. Child went sixteen days without soiling
himself. Prior to that time he soiled himself on multiple occasions per day and
again began soiling himself when visits resumed.
[¶5.] Psychological testing conducted on both parents appeared invalid
because they “faked good.” Mother’s result were offset by a high abuse score and
father appeared to be covering up, denying and minimizing in his responses.
Mother and father denied any incidents of abuse, whether physical or sexual. The
parents only made “minimal” progress in family therapy sessions. The testimony
indicated that child would benefit from a stable and safe environment where he
could work through the trauma he experienced without fear of repercussion from
his parents. The trial court terminated mother and father’s parental rights.
ANALYSIS
ISSUE ONE
[¶6.] Whether the trial court erred in allowing hearsay statements
during the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings.
-2-
#24659, 24664
[¶7.] Mother and father claim that the trial court erred in allowing hearsay
statements from child concerning abuse during both phases of the termination
proceeding.
Adjudicatory phase
[¶8.] During the adjudicatory phase child’s revelations of sexual abuse had
not yet surfaced; although there was concern based on prior indications of sexual
abuse and child’s encopresis. The parents' challenge to hearsay testimony at this
phase related to child’s statements concerning the incident where mother slapped
him. In that regard, objection was made to the dental hygienist's testimony
concerning what child had told her happened to cause the bruising. However, no
objection was made to the same statements as offered from the investigating officer,
DSS caseworker or a Children’s Home Society therapist.
[¶9.] The State concedes that the statements were not admissible under
SDCL 19-16-38 (statement of sex crime, physical abuse, or neglect by victim under
age ten) but argues the statements were admissible under SDCL 19-16-39
(statements alleging child abuse or neglect). That statute provides:
An out-of-court statement not otherwise admissible by
statute or rule of evidence is admissible in evidence in any
civil proceeding alleging child abuse or neglect or any
proceeding for termination of parental rights if:
(1) The statement was made by a child under
the age of ten years or by a child ten years of
age or older who is developmentally disabled,
as defined in § 27B-1-3; and
(2) The statement alleges, explains, denies or
describes:
***
(c) Any act of physical abuse or neglect of
the child by another . . . and
-3-
#24659, 24664
(3) The court finds that the time, content and
circumstances of the statement and the
reliability of the person to whom the
statement is made provide sufficient indicia
of reliability; and
(4) The proponent of the statement notifies
other parties of an intent to offer the
statement and the particulars of the
statement sufficiently in advance of the
proceeding at which the proponent intends to
offer the statement into evidence, to provide
the parties with a fair opportunity to meet
the statement.
The trial court ensured that notice of the statement had been provided but did not
conduct an on-the-record discussion concerning “sufficient indicia of reliability”
before allowing the statement into evidence. Although this finding should have
been made by the trial court, a review of the record demonstrates the reliability of
the statement based on testimony concerning child’s understanding of truthfulness,
his age, the particulars of the statement, the timing of the statement, the repetition
of the statement and the fact the injury and how it was caused were consistent with
the events where mother states she “accidentally” hit the child causing the bruising
and bloody nose while trimming his fingernails. 2 Further, given the fact the same
2. “As witnesses, children are neither inherently reliable nor inherently
unreliable. Each child's statement must be evaluated on its own merits.
Several factors should be considered when assessing reliability. These
include:
(1) the child's age and maturity; (2) the nature and duration of
the abuse; (3) the relationship of the child to the offender; (4) the
coherence of the statement, bearing in mind that young children
may sometimes describe incidents in age appropriate language
and in a disorganized manner; (5) the child's capacity to observe,
retain, and communicate information; (6) the nature and
character of the statement itself, considering the child's
-4-
#24659, 24664
accounts were relayed through other witnesses without objection, any error would
be harmless. See Interest of J.G.R., 2004 SD 131, ¶ 19, 691 NW2d 586, 592
(applying harmless error analysis to an adjudicatory hearing).
Dispositional phase
[¶10.] Parents also objected to hearsay statements concerning abuse offered
at the dispositional phase. Although it has been well-settled law that the rules of
evidence do not apply at the dispositional phase, the parents contend that SDCL 19-
16-39, as set forth above, applies to dispositional hearings based on the phrase “any
proceeding for termination of parental rights” contained in its introductory
paragraph. However, this argument overlooks the statutory structure and purpose
of the dispositional phase along with the prefatory phrase contained in SDCL 19-16-
39 that this section only applies to statements “not otherwise admissible by statute
or rule of evidence.”
[¶11.] SDCL 19-9-14 specifically provides that the provisions of chapter 19-
16, and consequently SDCL 19-16-39, do not apply to dispositional proceedings.
SDCL 26-7A-56 clearly indicates “the rules of civil procedure and the rules of
evidence apply to adjudicatory hearings. All other hearings shall be conducted
under the rules prescribed by the court.” SDCL 26-7A-34 similarly states that an
developmental limitations in understanding and describing
sexual behavior; (7) any motivation of the child to make a false
allegation or a false denial; (8) the child's susceptibility to
suggestion and the integrity of the situation under which the
statement was obtained; and (9) all the circumstances under
which the statement was made.”
State v. Guthmiller, 2003 SD 83, ¶ 13, 667 NW2d 295, 301.
-5-
#24659, 24664
adjudicatory hearing “shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of civil
procedure” but dispositional hearings “shall be conducted and designed to inform
the court fully of the exact status of the child and to ascertain the history,
environment and past and present physical, mental and moral condition of the child
and of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian.” Based in part on this legislative
scheme, this Court has determined that another very similar evidentiary rule,
SDCL 19-16-38, did not apply at the dispositional phase. See Interest of H.M., 474
NW2d 267, 270 (SD 1991). 3 Likewise, we conclude the language of SDCL 19-16-39
has not changed this well-settled principle as demonstrated by the more specific
statutory enactments. As a result, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting this evidence at the dispositional hearing.
ISSUE TWO
[¶12.] Whether there was sufficient evidence to support termination. 4
[¶13.] SDCL 26-8A-21 requires that DSS shall make reasonable efforts
directed toward the goal of returning a child to the home. However, DSS is not
required to exhaust every possible form of assistance and what is reasonable
depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In re W.G., 1999 SD 85, ¶
16, 597 NW2d 430, 433. The trial court found reasonable efforts had been made in
3. This Court has also recently held that “the Crawford analysis involving the
Sixth Amendment right of confrontation in criminal cases is not applicable in
this civil abuse and neglect proceeding.” Interest of S.A., 2005 SD 120, ¶ 17,
708 NW2d 673, 679.
4. We have consolidated parents' remaining issues into one section here. They
individually challenge whether reasonable efforts were made, whether there
was clear and convincing evidence to support termination and whether
termination was the least restrictive alternative.
-6-
#24659, 24664
assisting the parents. The record reflects that the parents were offered and
received services, not just during this matter, but over the course of several years.
This included case management, home-based counseling, psychological testing,
parenting classes, residential care, family therapy and visitation. However, the
parents refused to address issues during family therapy and denied and minimized
their conduct not only in regard to this child but also the events surrounding the
removal of their five other children.
[¶14.] Parents also maintain that the evidence supporting termination of
parental rights was not clear and convincing. The State must prove a child is
abused and neglected by clear and convincing evidence. Matter of J.A.H., 502
NW2d 120, 124 (SD 1993). The trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside
unless they are clearly erroneous and “due regard shall be given to the opportunity
of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Matter of D.H., 354
NW2d 185, 188 (SD 1984). The trial court determined that the parents’ explanation
for the physical abuse that initiated this case was not credible. Their statements
and denials were contradicted by both the child’s statements and those of his prior
siblings detailing past physical and sexual abuse. Child also provided detailed
statements of sexual abuse by father and described how he would come into his
room at night. Mother was aware of this conduct and did nothing to prevent it. As
indicated by the therapists, child’s condition where he soils himself at such an
advanced age is indicative of sexual abuse and emotional trauma. This is
particularly telling when child gained control over this problem when visitations
were cancelled after he disclosed the sexual abuse. Further, child was fearful and
angry before and after the visits with his parents and always wanted a trusted
-7-
#24659, 24664
adult with him during those times. On this record, the trial court did not err in
determining child was abused and neglected by clear and convincing evidence.
[¶15.] We have always recognized that the needs of the children are
paramount and that their best interests must prevail. In re A.H., 421 NW2d 71, 75-
76 (SD 1988). Parental rights may be terminated if it is in the best interests of the
child and is also the least restrictive alternative available. Id. The best interests of
the child are viewed from the child’s, not the parents’, perspective. Id. Again, in
order to overturn this finding of fact, the parents must demonstrate the trial court
was clearly erroneous. Matter of J.Y., 502 NW2d 860, 862 (SD 1993). In light of the
physical and sexual abuse and this child’s overwhelming need for stability and
security in order to overcome his severe emotional damage, the trial court was not
clearly erroneous in determining termination was the least restrictive alternative.
[¶16.] Affirmed.
[¶17.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, SABERS, KONENKAMP, ZINTER and
MEIERHENRY, Justices, participating.
-8-