Mary Walton v. David C. Ireland Jr.
104 A.3d 883
| Me. | 2014Background
- Parents David Ireland and Mary Walton share a daughter born 2006; by 2012 the child primarily lived with Walton and visited Ireland regularly.
- After a visit in October 2012 the child told Walton during bathing that it “hurt down there”; Walton took the child to the emergency room and then to Spurwink for a forensic evaluation.
- The child began play therapy with licensed clinical social worker Cindy Barker; in early sessions the child repeatedly described sexual contact by her father (finger contact and licking) and identified Ireland as the abuser.
- Forensic interviewer Donna Andrews (Spurwink) conducted one interview in December 2012 in which the child again identified her father; no physical injuries were found on exam.
- At the protection-from-abuse hearing Barker’s testimony about the child’s out-of-court statements was conditionally admitted under M.R. Evid. 803(4); the court excluded Andrews’s forensic-interview testimony as not for diagnosis/treatment and found Ireland had sexually abused the child, issuing a protection order; Ireland appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walton) | Defendant's Argument (Ireland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child’s statements to play therapist under M.R. Evid. 803(4) | Statements were made for diagnosis/treatment of child’s anxiety and were pertinent (including the abuser’s identity) | Statements lacked indicia of reliability and identity of perpetrator is not pertinent to treatment | Court: Admissible — 803(4) covers psychological treatment; identity can be pertinent to diagnosis/treatment where therapist so testifies |
| Reliability requirement for 803(4) statements | Reliability goes to weight, not admissibility; no extra showing required beyond rule | Court should require stronger indicia of reliability (subjective purpose) before admitting child’s statements | Court: Reliability is for the factfinder; no additional rule-level reliability requirement imposed |
| Admissibility of forensic interview (Andrews) | Forensic interview corroborated Barker and was relevant | Interview was investigative, not for diagnosis/treatment, so not within 803(4) | Court: Properly excluded — Andrews’s interview was forensic/evidentiary rather than for treatment |
| Sufficiency of evidence for finding of abuse | Out-of-court statements to therapist plus other evidence support finding by preponderance | Child’s in-court testimony recanted/denied abuse and is more reliable than earlier statements | Court: Finding affirmed — trial court credited therapist statements over inconsistent in-court testimony; credibility for factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Guyette, 36 A.3d 916 (Me. 2012) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of hearsay)
- Ames v. Ames, 822 A.2d 1201 (Me. 2003) (child statements to social worker admissible under 803(4) when treatment aimed to identify and overcome fear)
- State v. Cookson, 837 A.2d 101 (Me. 2003) (statements to nurse practitioner about stalking and emotional abuse admissible under 803(4))
- State v. True, 438 A.2d 460 (Me. 1981) (identity of perpetrator and extraneous details may be inadmissible under 803(4) when not pertinent to diagnosis/treatment)
- State v. Sickles, 655 A.2d 1254 (Me. 1995) (pertinence under 803(4) is objective; medically irrelevant details should be excluded)
- White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1992) (statements made in course of obtaining medical services carry guarantees of reliability that may not be replicated by in-court testimony)