In re: J.J. and T.S., 174 A.3d 372

Nine-year-old J.J. made audio-recorded allegations that her father, James J., sexually abused her; the Department sought to admit that out-of-court statement at CINA adjudication under Maryland's "tender years" statute, CP § 11-304.
The juvenile court conducted a § 11-304 hearing, played the recording, heard witnesses, and made on-the-record findings as to each of the statute's 13 trustworthiness factors; it declined to examine the child in chambers because the recording made an examination unnecessary.
The court found corroboration of opportunity (father's statement that he was sole caregiver) and concluded the statement had "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness," admitting it for the truth of the matter asserted.
At adjudication the court found the interview credible and sustained the abuse allegations; the parents appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari and, exercising discretion to reach an unpreserved issue, considered whether a preliminary truth-competency finding is required before admitting a non-testifying child's statement under CP § 11-304.

Issue	Petitioner (Mr. J.) Argument	Respondent (Department) Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court must make a preliminary truth-competency finding before admitting a non-testifying child’s out-of-court statement under CP § 11-304	Statute should be read to require a threshold finding that the child can distinguish truth from falsehood; without it the statement is unreliable	CP § 11-304 is silent and its plain language and legislative history do not require a competency finding; existing trustworthiness factors suffice	No. Court exercised discretion to address the unpreserved claim and held § 11-304 does not require a preliminary truth-competency determination
Whether the juvenile court erred in admitting J.J.’s statement under § 11-304 for lack of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness	J.J.’s statements contained inconsistencies, prior unsubstantiated allegations, possible motive to fabricate, and leading questions in the interview — therefore not sufficiently trustworthy	Court complied with § 11-304, considered all statutory factors, and inconsistencies go to weight not admissibility; there was corroboration of opportunity	Court held the juvenile court did not clearly err; the statement had particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and was admissible

Jones v. State, 410 Md. 681 (2009) (trial judge must make on-the-record findings as to specific guarantees of trustworthiness under CP § 11-304)
Phillips v. State, 451 Md. 180 (2017) (statutory interpretation principles; focus on plain language)
Commonwealth v. Walter, 93 A.3d 442 (Pa. 2014) (state tender‑years statute does not require competency to admit child’s out-of-court statements)
State v. Silverman, 906 N.E.2d 427 (Ohio 2009) (child hearsay may be admitted under tender‑years rule without determining competency to testify)
State v. C.J., 63 P.3d 765 (Wash. 2003) (prerequisites for admissibility under child‑hearsay statute do not include truth‑competency)
Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990) (consistent repetition considered in Confrontation Clause reliability analysis; later supplanted by Crawford v. Washington)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (modern Confrontation Clause framework; shifted reliability analysis)