In the Interest of T. S.
317 Ga. App. 683
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Mother seeks to appeal a juvenile court deprivation finding for T. S., asserting due process confrontation rights were violated when she was excluded during testimony and could not assist counsel in cross-examination.
- Juvenile court allowed T. S. to testify in camera without a finding of necessity and without providing means for the mother to listen and consult, prompting objection.
- Court acknowledged parent as a party in deprivation proceedings and to whom due process requires the opportunity to confront witnesses and cross-examine.
- Court recognized that effective confrontation can occur without mere face-to-face presence when substitutes (listening while testifying, concurrent consultation) are provided, but excluded parents may violate due process if no necessity shown and no means to participate.
- Trial court’s exclusion was error; this error was harmful because it deprived the mother of the ability to assist in cross-examination and to participate in the defense.
- Judgment reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the mother's exclusion from the courtroom during T. S.'s testimony a due process violation? | Mother | Father? Juvenile court | Yes; error if no necessity shown and no means to listen/consult. |
| Did the court’s procedures (camera testimony, ability to listen, and consult with counsel) satisfy the confrontation right? | Mother | Court | Not necessarily; failure to show necessity and provide listening/consultation means reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Interest of A. J., 269 Ga. App. 580, 581 (1) (604 SE2d 635) (2004) (Ga. App. 2004) (parent entitled to due process; right to confront witnesses)
- In the Interest of C. W. D., 232 Ga. App. 200 (501 SE2d 232) (1998) (Ga. App. 1998) (right to confront includes ability to question witnesses)
- Lingerfelt v. State, 235 Ga. 139, 140 (218 SE2d 752) (1975) (Ga. 1975) (Sixth Amendment confrontation concept for cross-examination)
- Denson v. State, 150 Ga. 618, 622 (4) (104 SE 780) (1920) (Ga. 1920) (main purpose of confrontation is cross-examination)
- In the Interest of M. H. W., 275 Ga. App. 586, 590 (1) (621 SE2d 779) (2005) (Ga. App. 2005) (no harm when opportunity to cross-examine via alternative means)
- In the Interest of B. G., 225 Ga. App. 492, 494 (1) (484 SE2d 293) (1997) (Ga. App. 1997) (reversal when parent excluded and no means to listen/consult)
- In the Interest of M. S., 178 Ga. App. 380, 381 (343 SE2d 152) (1986) (Ga. App. 1986) (reversal where exclusion prevented observing testimony)
- In the Interest of B. H., 295 Ga. App. 297, 301 (5) (671 SE2d 303) (2008) (Ga. App. 2008) (harmful when excluded without ability to consult counsel)