*1 say that the modified order of is either support unfair or confiscatory.
The order of support requiring appellant a total pay per $190.00 week for the support of his children his first marriage (Kate and Bill is Eyster) hereby ordered modified per week. The $182.00 additional sum of per week $20.00 ordered to pay for arrearages which became due because of of the lower retroactivity court’s order is ordered modi- fied to per week until such $10.00 time as the are arrearages paid off.
The order as modified affirmed.
Appeal Margaret JONES. Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued Nov. 1979. 8,May Filed 1981. *3 Mahood, Pittsburgh, James E. for appellant. Shink, Pittsburgh, appellees. F. for
Shari Tabakin, Solicitor, Loraine Assistant for County partici- S. pating party. PRICE, CAVANAUGH,
Before JJ. HESTER CAVANAUGH, Judge: this concerns of two custody
The in case dispute children children, 1976 Tina and Jameeda Jones.1 In to a adjudicated dependent pursuant petition were moth and were removed from their Child Welfare Services were to remain they er’s with direction that further Both were placement pending disposition. girls aunt, with their maternal Ernestine placed Taylor. mother maintain contact with the chil regular continued to dren under since their At the same time she placement. went herself psychiatric counselling. Considering care and children, competent rehabilitated to care for her mother petitioned hearing regain for order to custody. A court con- dispositional hearing2 was held and the lower Jones, Although caption 1. this case includes the name of Kevin party Following Kevin was not a to this action. his birth Kevin was immediately placed in a foster home and has never been in his custody. mother’s 2. The to the in the lower as a “Rehear- refers court ing Dispositional By place Order of June 1976”. that order given permission Children and Youth Services were Jameeda with their maternal finding Tina and aunt, Taylor. Ernestine Because a made, dependency already can be no had been there dispute rehearing, subject appeal, but that the which is the of this dispositional hearing. significant. was a This distinction finding proof dependency required At the initial must be convincing. long clear and “It is a serious matter for the arm of the state to into It is a reach a home and snatch a child its mother. power government which a to freedom for the individual dedicated only should exercise with extreme care and where the evidence Yet, course, clearly necessity. establishes its there are cases *4 authority protection where such welfare of must for the be exercised 148, 143, Appeal, Pa.Super 117 the children.” Rinker 780, (1955). hearing A.2d Because the in the instant case was dispositional, explained this burden is As this lessened. Court Service, 371, Stapleton Dauphin County Pa.Super. v. Child Care 387, (1974): 324 A.2d “This is so because the reasons for the convincing] longer family, standard clear and ... no exist. The [of designed protect, already which the standard is has been apart; unity being protected wrenched the that has been de- was stroyed. longer appears party The Commonwealth no in a as a arbitrator, parents contest between the State and the but rather as an required only who is to decide what is in the best interests of the DeSavage, child.” See also Matter of 360 A.2d eluded that the best interests of the children would not be served an by award the mother. We reverse and remand. question before us is whether a in a parent
dispositional has a constitutional the right under due clause process to confront and cross-examine adverse wit nesses. We hold that the has parent such a and that procedure the followed the lower by court did not adequate ly with the mandates of due comport process.
A review of the record reveals but for adverse resolution issue, of one factual all parties would favored, have ordered, and the lower court would have return of the mother, children to the if not immediately, then through a of extended visitation period to facilitate readjustment. This factual issue was key whether the mother was continuing her involvement in a lesbian relation ship with a male Aznif impersonator, Smith.
The record is with replete testimony as to the harmful influence Smith has had on the children and their mother. At the time of the removal of the children from the mother’s Welfare custody by Child Service Aznif was living Smith with the mother. According Smith assumed the alias “Hendren and it was Bower” believed mother and Smith were “married” in Decem- November or ber of 1975. In mother, December of 1975 while well advanced in pregnancy, pushed was down a of stairs flight after, Smith. Soon on December Kevin was born. Smith was adjudicated delinquent and came under the su- pervision of the Juvenile Court. to the According children’s children, Jameeda, maternal grandmother, especially became disturbed the mother’s emotionally relationship with Smith. Although children wanted to return to their mother’s custody, they were fearful that would Smith be there. During judge’s interview with the children it was determined that to visit with the mother they preferred before back to her going so that would be permanently they certain that Smith was not there.
The mother maintained that she had not seen for Smith had no of her where- two and idea approximately years However, counsel for the and Youth abouts. Children Serv- ices called the children’s maternal aunt Taylor, Ernestine with whom the had resided since their removal girls she had been the mother’s home. Mrs. testified that Taylor the relation- from an unnamed source that getting reports was ship continuing. between the mother Smith over judge permitted testimony objection despite The this reports. Mrs. the source of these refusal name Taylor’s As a for Children result this information the social worker that, she although and Youth stated to the court Services had in the girls placed intended to recommend that mother’s in view of Mrs. she custody, Taylor’s testimony, recommended further A was sched- investigation. hearing uled so that the unnamed witness could be examined. Mrs. stated that the if Taylor person appear permitted would only to remain anonymous.
A second was held at which the trial hearing judge time overruled raised counsel and objections by appellant’s witness, C., permitted the Mr. anonymous testify camera in the absence of children’s attor- appellant.3 The caseworker, ney, Children and Youth the Chil- Services dren and Youth and the mother’s attorney attorney Services were present at this At the hearing. identity Mr. C. and his revealed.4 relationship to the mother was However, the witness’s was not revealed to the identity Mr. appellant. C.’s was that the testimony Smith continued to maintain a and that relationship relationship was at times violent. At a third hearing appel- lant presented rebuttal The trial how- testimony. judge, ever, against found the mother and stated: they 3. The notes of before were were lost transcribed. Pa.R.A.P., stipulation Pursuant Rule counsel have filed a portions testimony. to the material of Mr. C’s C., however, identity appear 4. Mr. does of record stipulation by portions testimony. counsel of the material of Mr. C’s Advocacy Legal Also the brief filed on behalf of the children Child identity Aid disclose the of Mr. C. *6 The Court upon early of Child Welfare reports Services was completely willing to a transition begin the children the home of the maternal aunt to that mother, of the but the continuing and the investigation in-court, credible very strong under oath testimony from Mr. C. subject to intensive cross examination by plaintiff’s lawyer, convinced this court beyond doubt that a any very disruptive influence is in the present life the mother. Custody of the children was awarded to the Child Welfare Services. appeal
On the mother argues that below proceedings did not her adequately protect to due because process she has a right personally to confront the witness presenting evidence her interests. contrary She claims that the fact that her learned of attorney Mr. C.’s an identity and had opportunity to cross-examine him—absent her own knowl- edge Mr. C.’s insufficient identity—is of her protection constitutional rights.
The facts of this case raise a question difficult as to the nature of the parent’s right to due in process a dispositional hearing. The answer to this question is most troublesome it involves the delicate determination of when the integrity the family may be sacrificed in an effort protect its individual members. proceedings the lower court were governed by Act,
Juvenile Pa.C.S.A. et seq. § In adopting the “Juvenile Act” the stated that legislature the Act shall be and interpreted construed as to effectuate certain purposes:
(1) To preserve the unity family possible whenever care, provide for the protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children with- coming in the provisions of this chapter.
(3) To achieve the foregoing in a purposes environ- family ment whenever possible, separating the child from parents only when for his welfare or in the necessary interests of public safety. of this provisions which the through means
(4) To provide which the and in and enforced are executed chapter and their constitutional a fair are assured parties enforced. recognized and other legal rights we in mind can with these Only purposes 6301. Pa.C.S. § stated in before us. As this court address the issue properly LaRue, 218, 222, A.2d Interest of all from which (1976), principle, “The fundamental derive, grow is that a child cases principles other family.” of its natural up part
I
*7
and
to confront
right
assertion that she has
Appellant’s
a dispositional
cross-examine adverse witnesses at
to confron-
a criminal defendant
novel. Unlike the
of
right
are not
tation,
universally
it is
that such rights
established
McDonnell, 418
539,
Wolff v.
U.S.
applicable
hearings.
to all
Kennedy,
Arnett v.
416
2963,
(1974);
Rules of
be
procedure may
358, 368, 90
In re
Winship,
risk of error.
397 U.S.
S.Ct.
J.,
1068, 1074,
(1970) (Harlan,
concurring);
appellant’s right this analysis. this, parent’s
In a case such as where child’s best on the factual determination hinges As be overstated. interest, the risk of error cannot 254, Kelly, v. Goldberg U.S. stated in Court Supreme (1970), “In almost 1011, 1021, 25 L.Ed. 268, 90 S.Ct. turn on questions decisions setting important where every to confront an fact, requires opportunity due process omitted). In (citations witnesses.” cross-examine adverse the court held that before Goldberg, assistance public pay- ments are terminated due process requires that an evidentia- ry hearing be held. The must afford evidentiary hearing the welfare recipient opportunity to confront and cross- examine the witnesses relied on Department. Earlier v. 474, 496-97, Greene McElroy, U.S. 79 S.Ct. 1377, 1390-91, 3 L.Ed.2d the Supreme Court under- scored the of confrontation importance where questions fact are to be determined:
Certain have remained principles immutable relatively in our jurisprudence. One of these is that where govern- mental individual, action an seriously injures and the reasonableness of the action on fact depends findings, evidence used prove the Government’s must be case disclosed to the individual so that he has an show it is untrue. While this is case important in the evidence, it is documentary even more where important the evidence consists of of individuals whose who, fact, be or memory might faulty might perjur- ers or malice, persons motivated vindictiveness intoler- ance, prejudice, or We jealousy. have formalized these protections in the requirements of confrontation and (Emphasis added). cross-examination. Greene,
Consistent with the language this Goldberg court has held that “[tjhe right of a to in-court litigant *8 presentation of evidence essential to due process[.j”. Wood Tucker, 461, 463, v. Pa.Super. 191, 231 332 192 A.2d (1974). Wood v. Tucker involved a child custody dispute between the father and the maternal There grandparents. we held that the lower court had denied grandparents process due by considering “ex from parte” reports former employees the father’s present wife and from a social that agency investigated adequacy father’s home. Wood v. Tucker is one of a line of child long cases which have held that a violation of the to confronta- tion and cross examination occurs when the court considers matters not of record in its decision. As reaching we stated in Com. ex rel. v. Oncay Oncay, Pa.Super. 34 A.2d 839 (1943): investi- however, reports that again, out point
We must evidence, be received cannot and doctors gators, agents . . . The case. in a contested court or considered by be etc., doctors, must themselves investigators, agents, subject and be as witnesses sworn and examined produced, (citations all other witnesses examination, just to cross omitted). 4,n. at 238 LaRue, Pa.Super. supra, also Interest of
See
ex rel.
Com.
4, (Hoffman,
dissenting);
J.
Thus we must consider the which will fol- “consequences low” if we were to hold that due process requires that parents be afforded confrontation rights at dispositional hearings.
Turning once again case, to facts of this it is not disputed that there exists a strong chil- possibility dren would be harmed further association with Aznif Smith. It is also not disputed that absent the disturbing influence of Smith the children enjoy a good loving with relationship above, their mother. As noted to prior learning Mr. C.’s allegations the Children Youth Services caseworker had intended to recommend that custo- dy the children be returned to the mother. Also the hearing judge had been willing to return of begin gradual the children to appellant. Thus the information furnished by Mr. C. was critical court’s final determination.
Evidence of such
must
importance
be
to close
subjected
scrutiny so that
the proper disposition is made. Appellees
argue that
the best
interests of the children should not be
sacrificed in
protect
order to
the rights of the
We
parents.
agree that
utmost concern
for the children’s welfare.
It is for this reason that
short of
nothing
the “comprehen
sive and
into
searching inquiry'
the facts” mandated by
Clouse,
In re
decisions of this court will
acceptable. See
be
Commonwealth ex
(1976);
585 as a result testified and not have disclosure, would Mr. C. envi- damaging a returned to have been children would the however, is that consequence, equally possible ronment. An an adequate absent testimony, Mr. C.’s relying upon by truthfulness, deprive the court could his to test deprivation where such her children the parent the would suffer the children doing, In so is not warranted. the mother. less than no deprivation of error the risk therefore, considering that after hold, We adopt- follow the procedure which will and the consequences of due court, deprived mother has been the ed the lower by process.
II the is whether must address The we question second followed procedures Juvenile Act authorizes section 6341(d) is the pertinent lower court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § follows: and it provides disposition of disposition.—In on issue
(d) Evidence (c) helpful all evidence (b) under subsections hearings including oral questions presented, determining relied court and received reports, may written not though value even its probative to the extent of upon The the petition. on competent otherwise an opportunity shall be afforded or their counsel parties and to so received reports written examine and controvert Sources making reports. individuals cross-examine be disclosed. need not in confidence information given is silent on the rules Juvenile Act 6341(d) for Except § observed, however, been As has applied. evidence to be rules are to indication that traditional 6341(d) “there is an § on adjudication after an relaxation with some apply Appeal, made.” Anderson merits has been J. dissenting). 439, 447, (1973) (Spaeth, 313 A.2d contem- the Act us, then, is whether before question court by the permitted as that such a relaxation plates below. statute, we note that in
Initially construing sections of the statute must be construed with the entire reference to Ross, statute and not alone. Keitt v. 17 Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d 582 Pa.C.S.A. 1922. The court must § legislative determine intent from the of a statute totality and render an which effect to its interpretation gives all of Commonwealth, provisions. Wolfe v. Trans- Department of Bureau of Traffic portation, Safety, Pa.Cmwlth. A.2d 600 (1976). 1921(a). 1 Pa.C.S.A. §
Appellees contend that the Act not that does require confidential informants in or that testify person parties all present at that dispositional hearings. Appellees state the the Act requirements of are satisfied if a counsel party’s is present and afforded an to controvert written opportunity reports and cross-examine witnesses. states in 6341(d) § part: “The their parties or counsel shall be afforded an to examine and controvert written so opportunity reports received and to cross-examine individuals making reports.” to Contrary appellees’ argument, this does not language address the an situation where informant refus- anonymous Rather, es to the testify person. language long codifies a line of cases the condemning practice in the trial courts of relying on without extra-judicial reports taking testimony and without giving parties the an to cross-ex- opportunity amine the individual who made the up report and/or present Rummel, rebuttal e. Rummel testimony. g. See v. Tucker, supra; Wood v. supra.
Because the situation before us does not involve written reports, support for that appellee’s position the Act does not require the confrontation of witnesses at a dispositional hearing must be in other 6341(d). found within language § 6341(d)
Initially states: “In disposition hearings § under (b) (c) subsections all evidence in deter helpful mining questions the presented, including oral and written reports, be received the may by court and relied to the upon extent of its probative value even not otherwise though competent in the hearing on the To this petition.” interpret language as evidence to be permitting despite introduced of a rights violates the constitutional fact that its admission to the reading phrase expansive is to far too party give arise may the situation competent”. Certainly “otherwise do testimo- where, permit the rules of evidence not although court, would be such by be received ny to However, that situation 6341(d). under admitted properly § here, evidence where, reception not arise does process. violates due states, information 6341(d) “Sources
Finally, § this be disclosed.” Indeed in confidence need not given appel be read to may support is troublesome and language the lower lees’ followed procedure argument statute. As the discussion court was authorized indicates, of the identi of this nondisclosure part opinion one an of Mr. C. ty deprived we hold cross-examine the informant. Since process the due instant case the mother had a under informant, in so clause to confront and cross-examine otherwise, it unconstitutional. far is permits as the statute that a presumption We so hold mindful of the fact legislative enactments constitutionality accorded *12 clear unconstitutional unless they will not be declared they v. Constitution. Driscoll ly, and violate the palpably, plainly 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 320 A.2d Plymouth Township, of that sources 1 Pa. The statement 1921(a). C.S.A. § fact, is, palpa not clearly, information need be disclosed in its unquali violative of the Constitution bly, and plainly the of fied into evidence testimony regardless allowance veracity reliability to test the opportunity provided the declarant. note, by appellees
As a final the raised arguments testimony Taylor to Ernestine admissibility the above, Taylor forth Ernestine must be addressed. As set that had from an unnamed source testified that she learned was the mother and Aznif Smith association between into that holding reception In view of our continuing. due process violated the testimony evidence of Mr. C.’s Mr. C.’s that rights hardly argued of the it can appellant, can be admitted indirectly through hearsay testimony 6341(d) of Ms. Whether Taylor. permits § introduction of evidence we hearsay dispositional hearings However, do not we do hold the recep- decide. that where tion of evidence would of an hearsay deprive parent witness, a confront and cross-examine such not may evidence be admitted. for a dispositional
Case reversed and remanded new hear- ing.
Reversed and remanded.
HESTER, J., files dissenting opinion.
HESTER, Judge, dissenting: The concludes not majority only that due appellant’s proc- ess rights were also that infringed, part but Juvenile Act is unconstitutional. Due my agree with inability conclusion, either I must dissent. had
This its in 1976 genesis case when the children were adjudicated dependent to a pursuant petition by Child Services, aunt, Welfare placed were with the maternal time, Ernestine at that Taylor. record indicates that was in need of care and appellant-mother psychiatric had in been at fact the Western patient Psychiatric Institute in Pittsburgh following threats to kill herself and her Jameeda. It further that daughter appears appellant female, Smith, was awith one Aznif who living year-old male; impersonated a that and Miss Smith had 1975; been “married” sometime in the children were forced to call Miss “daddy”; Smith Smith exhibited tendencies, violent particularly toward and that appellant; the adverse emotional of the lesbian impact relationship upon the children their necessitated removal appel- lant’s home at that time. *13 29,1978,
On November a appellant requested rehearing on issue, that “undergone she had custody contending posi- tive and psychological evaluation has been com- determined petent care for properly hearing to the children.” At on now appellant that 20, 1978, it was established December a and with three bedrooms apartment in a lives comfortable by is supported room and room-dining living combination was received indicat- report assistance. A public psychiatric capable performing stabilized and was ing appellant had addition, it was that alleged her In parent. functions as a the two with and longer appellant Aznif Smith was no past years. each other for the two had had no contact with both In camera examination of the children revealed that were mother but rejoining were desirous of their girls Smith, that Aznif possibility extremely apprehensive home. feared, in that residing whom still be they may the court that she assurances to Appellant gave repeated her was out of was indeed alone now and that Smith living as a life. Youth then called Counsel for Children & Services in whose custo- witness the maternal aunt Taylor, Ernestine two Miss past years. the children had resided for the dy anony- she been informed an Taylor testified that had appel- mous was still with residing witness that Aznif Smith Coun- lant and was known as “husband”. appellant’s still was grounds sel’s this on objection hearsay to children are afraid of overruled. further stated that the She is in any way mother’s if returning their Smith the court ordered that involved. In view of this testimony, further inves- pending the children remain with Miss Taylor Children & Youth tigation allegations of her and afforded witness produce anonymous an opportunity Services was stated that this whom referred. It Taylor Miss to appellant his to be revealed witness did not wish identity presence. testify appellant’s and in fact would not record in on the testify court ordered that this witness could subsequent with the presence of all counsel her counsel to refute on part appellant statements made the witness. any with all counsel appeared Mr. C. On December courtroom, from the excluded present appellant but with known that he had over her He stated objection. counsel’s of years; both Smith for a number Miss *14 he visits home appellant’s get his hair weekly by to styled her; that he this has in manner learned appellant continues “husband”; to see Smith to her is and refers as and that he aware of violence on the of toward part appellant, Smith at one necessitating period hospitalization least of appel- lant.
A 3, third was held on 1979 to allow hearing January appellant to rebut these Aznif allegations. Smith appeared and denied involvement with over the any appellant preced- ing-two years and stated she had never been “married” appellant or been ever known as her husband. Appellant and her mother also testified and reiterated that Miss Smith was not with involved at that time appellant and that “nothing 1/3/79, comes before kids.” N.T. 39. p. [the]
The court took all under consideration and found that the relationship between and Miss exist; Smith continues that the children are fearful very her; Smith want and do not to live in the same house with that Smith is a serious emotional and potentially physically children; harmful influence on the that the best interest of the children would be they served if remained in the custody of the maternal aunt. does Appellant not now dispute her, the fact if Miss still that Smith is involved with then the children should not be returned to her. Her the contention is camera C., Mr. which excluded, she was violated her to confront this witness, due process her of law. denying court, note
Preliminarily, we
determining
best interests of the children in question, applied the correct
legal standard in
sort.
proceeding
of this
Once the child
has been
the parents
wrested from
in a dependency proceed-
ing, then
effort
any
further
parents
regain
will be judged according
interest,
to the
best
child’s
as
LaRue,
Interest of
any custody
218,
case.
244 Pa.Super.
A.2d 1271 (1976); Stapleton v. Dauphin County Child Care
Service,
A.2d 562
Act,
9, 1976,
Juvenile
Act of
P.L.
July
No.
2 (42
§
6301 et
forth a two-step
Pa.C.S.A.
sets
seq.),
§
first, or
In the
proceeding.
dependency
in any
procedure
whether,
clear
court determines
adjudicatory,
stage,
defined
evidence,
“dependent”
child is
convincing
is
dependency
6302;
6341(c).
finding
If a
see,
in §
§
stage,
second,
dispositional,
or
made,
court,
in the
then the
if such action
from the parents
child
may separate
*15
Black,
of
Interest
6301(b);
42 Pa.C.S.A.
clearly necessary,
§
of Pernish-
(1980); Interest
536,
(d) Evidence determining ques- helpful evidence hearings ... all bemay reports, and written including oral presented, tions its of to the extent and relied upon the court received by competent not otherwise though even value probative counsel The or their parties petition. on the contro- to examine and shall be afforded an and to cross-examine so received reports vert written of information making reports. Sources individuals need not be disclosed. in confidence given below hearings dispute herein do not parties separa- and dependency of finding as the dispositional, were See, Stapleton, ago. occurred sometime tion from family of evidence formalities the strict hearing, In such a supra. searching” and “comprehensive of a are relaxed in favor Clouse, 244 In Interest of evidence. into all relevant inquiry Thus, “not evidence 396, 368 A.2d Super. Pa. admissible; confrontation between competent” otherwise party’s long so required is not and witness party and sources an opportunity; is afforded such counsel a party. be made known to need not confidential information utilized face, 6341(d) procedure authorized the itsOn Sec. directly prevented was the lower court: anonymous learning identity confronting and witness, but her counsel and fully effectively cross-examined him. The crucial of this testimony witness would not other- wise have been available for he had refused to in the testify presence I would thus find the in camera appellant. hearing conformed in all with the respects liberal procedures of Sec. 6341. The majority concludes that the last sentence 6341(d) Sec. is constitutionally defective “in its unquali- fied allowance of into evidence regardless of the opportunity provided to test veracity reliability the declarant.” At 678. The however, majority’s holding, reaches too far because in the instant case there were a wealth of measures employed assure the “veracity reliability” of declarant, Thus, Mr. C. as I shall now discuss, appellant’s right to confront the witness was ade- quately protected in consonance with the I constitution. would hold the statute is valid.
Were this a criminal proceeding, appellant would have the
undoubted
confront and cross-examine adverse wit
*16
S.,
Bruton v.
nesses.
U.
123,
391
1620,
U.S.
88 S.Ct.
20
Texas,
Pointer v.
L.Ed.2d 476 (1968);
400,
380 U.S.
85 S.Ct.
1065,
593
Shuster,
229,
ex rel.
v.
226
Commonwealth
Grillo
And,
adjudication stage
once
(1973).
No doubt some non-parent. to a awarding custody child are served by unhappy paren- has lesson Experience taught infallible guarantee tal is not an relationship essential to a will the care and concern parent provide proper development. child’s Hooks, 363, 368, (1980). 416 A.2d
Ellerbe v. Pa. concern in all custody that the cardinal emphasized “It must be welfare of the permanent cases is the best interest Fetters, 491 Pa. v. ex rel. Albright Commonwealth child.” 320, 323, 421 A.2d appellant’s
I am satisfied in the instant case that
due
The “risks of error”
process rights
infringed.
were not
were minimized
counsel’s
by
Mr. C’s
admitting
that,
large part,
the fact
cross-examination
were corroborated
other evidence.
witness’ statements
*17
Moreover,
afforded
hearing, appellant
was
subsequent
she wished to rebut
evidence
present any
“adequate
Mr.
There was thus an
bases
allegations.
C’s
confrontation.
decision” without
of direct
necessity
322,
1551, 1559,
Palmigiano,
Baxter v.
U.S.
S.Ct.
which
“consequences
The children in their expressions of concern to the Court, Tina, indicated a fear Aznif particularly great Smith, based on the recollections of her involvement with to removal of the family prior children. There was when the testimony that children went to visit the mother pursuant directions, to court they scampered about the house under looking beds and in closets to determine whether or not Aznif was present. Smith Opinion of lower court at 11. Faced with such a possibility, the court could not have ignored evidence simply suggesting between the two relationship women was continuing. Rather, consistent with its to make a duty comprehensive inquiry interests, into the children’s best the court took the of Mr. while protecting C. his and at anonymity the same time affording appellant the right cross-exami- nation cases, her through attorney. least civil “[A]t cross-examination and is not all [of confrontation] pervasive that it automatically forecloses possibility competing consideration be of Tre- may equal magnitude.” Callahan, harne v. (3 Cir., Here, 426 F.2d 1970). “competing consideration” is the real very probability two children will be thrust back into an environment which with they greatly fear grave consequences to their welfare. Given the nature of the proceeding, the circum- peculiar stances surrounding appellant’s and the background, steps taken to reliability assure of Mr. C’s I testimony cannot say the court committed error. also contends the
Appellant court erred the hear- during ing of December 1978when it allowed the maternal aunt to give to the hearsay testimony relating wit- anonymous However, ness. whatever error have occurred was may certainly cured when Mr. actually appeared C. and testified at the next hearing.
595
to file
hearing judge
cases, we
require
In child
thorough
a
reflecting
opinion
comprehensive
case a
every
its
for
the reasons
and specifying
the record
analysis
Bender, 261
v.
Grillo,
Bender
supra;
decision.
ultimate
Moreover,
judge
(1978).
12,
A.2d 279
Pa.Super.
wit-
disinterested
objective,
receive evidence
should
A.2d 307
Gunter,
v.
Pa.Super.
nesses. Gunter
312, 324 A.2d
228 Pa.Super.
Augustine,
v.
(1976); Augustine
re-
these
with
complied
the court has
(1974).
Where
weight”.
“great
entitled
his decision
quirements,
an
absent
Clouse,
be reversed
ordinarily
and will not
supra,
v.
Meyers,
of discretion. McCourt
abuse
Instantly, partici- appeared Three counsel requirements. separate with in the A social worker familiar pated hearings.1 were and the record shows other caseworkers case testified reflects (13 pages) filed lengthy opinion also present. I evidence. pertinent consideration all the court’s careful ruling not disturb below. could A.2d Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH v. DOTSON, Appellant.
Howard Dale Pennsylvania. Superior Court March 1980. Submitted 8,May Filed 1981. 19, 1981. Appeal Denied Nov. for Allowance of
Petition children, were each Appellant, and Youth Services and Children 1. represented by separate lawyer.